Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that The Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:

Prices and Incomes Act, 1968.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Imports

Mr. Crouch: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are his latest estimates as to the volume and value of imports in the second half of 1968; and how they compare with those given in the Financial Statement.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given in this House on 25th June by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.—[Vol. 767, c. 217–8.]

Mr. Crouch: That does not take us very much further forward. I remind the President that we witnessed in the first quarter of this year an increase in imports due to a spending spree; we witnessed in the second quarter of the year—[HON. MEMBERS: "A question."]—I am coming to the question—and in the second quarter we witnessed a still further increase due to restocking. I ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can expect a down-turn of these figures for the second half of this year.

Mr. Crosland: The Question related to whether the Government would give additional forecasts for the second half of the

year beyond what was given in the Financial Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which my Answer was to repeat his, namely, "No". I think the Government have a good record in publishing the bases of its forecasts. Since it is only a very few months since it was forecast, we had better see how we go.

Mr. Crouch: asked the President of the Board of Trade by how much imports are at present running at a rate in excess of that implied in the forecast published in the Financial Statement in March.

Mr. Crosland: Imports of goods and services in the first quarter of this year were some £70 million higher, at 1958 prices, than the rate forecast for the first half-year.

Mr. Crouch: That is extremely disappointing and I hope that we can hear something more encouraging from the Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must put a question.

Hon. Members: "Is he aware?"

Dame Irene Ward: Do not worry, he is not aware.

Mr. Crouch: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I was not sufficiently awake, I hope you will excuse me. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is concern in the House least he should resort to panic measures later this year by way of import controls to try to right the balance which seems to be getting out of hand?

Mr. Crosland: I am aware that the figures for the first few months of this year on imports were not as many of us would have hoped. I think it will take some time for devaluation to have its effect. I am certain that it will have its effect. In the meantime I have no intention of taking any panic measures.

Mr. Cant: As the upturn in the import cycle is always the Achilles heel of the visible balance, will my right hon. Friend commission a study into the prior deposit system for imports, as no study exists in this country at the moment?

Mr. Crosland: I do not think my hon. Friend's assumption is right that imports are always the Achilles heel. On the contrary, if he looks—as no doubt he has


done—at the findings of the recent Brookings Study he will see that if one takes a long period what is peculiar about the British experience is not the behaviour of imports but the behaviour of exports.

Mr. Blaker: Is it not a fact that to some extent high import figures are caused by the fact that suppliers of manufactured and semi-manufactured goods overseas have been cutting their prices to offset the effect of devaluation? If this is so, is not the effect likely to continue permanently?

Mr. Crosland: It is certainly true that overseas suppliers to this country, as one might have expected, have been cutting prices in the post-devaluation situation and naturally wish to preserve their share of the market in the new conditions, but this is only one of the factors causing the increase and it is much too early to say that the long-term trend will be substantially different from what we expected a few months ago.

Mr. Sheldon: Since following devaluation we anticipated that the effect on imports would be much more certain than the rise in exports and this has not happened to anything like the extent that was hoped for, is it not time to look at the problem more carefully and to make sure that we avoid taking action too late, as has happened too often in the past?

Mr. Crosland: I can assure my hon. Friend that I look at the matter carefully and almost continuously, but he must accept that devaluation cannot be expected to operate rapidly on the state of imports. Many of the imports now coming into the country are still imports ordered before devaluation and it must take a considerable time for the pattern of trade in these matters to alter.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is there not now evidence that much of the stock-building of imports going on is due to the fear of import controls, and is not this gravely affected by the continual harping of some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends who desire to impose import controls?

Mr. Crosland: It is extremely hard to say from the figures whether there is any precautionary element due to a feeling that there might be import controls or restrictions of any kind, but if this feel-

ing exists let me make clear that the Government do not have any intention of imposing import controls.

Anglo-Danish Trade

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to redress the adverse balance of Anglo-Danish trade, whereby Denmark is selling to Great Britain approximately £70 million more than Great Britain sells to Denmark, so that, for every £2 of British sales to Denmark, Great Britain buys approximately £3 from Denmark; and whether he will make a statement on Anglo-Danish trade.

Mr. Crosland: Since 1960, total trade between Britain and Denmark has grown by nearly 55 per cent. We have followed up the highly successful British Week in 1964 by a series of trade promotions, culminating in a trade drive this year which included store promotions in several Danish towns and a British Engineering Exhibition in Copenhagen. I have firm hopes that our exports to Denmark will increase as a result.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most important export from Denmark to Britain is bacon, that the Danes have 50 per cent. of the British market for bacon, that home producers have only 34 per cent., and that other foreigners and Commonwealth sources have 16 per cent.? In those circumstances is this not a rewarding field for the policy of import substitution—more English bacon and less Danish bacon? Would the right hon. Gentleman apply himself to that?

Mr. Crosland: I will gladly apply myself to any question that the hon. Member directs towards me, and I hope that he will apply himself to not making statements about bank mergers before he has even read a copy of the Report. As to the question he asks about substituting home-produced bacon for imported bacon, we would all of us like to save imports, and recently ambitious ideas for agricultural import saving have been advanced. When we are considering these we must also consider the possible cost to the consumer or to the taxpayer. I think that under the current Selective Expansion Programme we are moving satisfactorily in the kind of direction that the hon. Gentleman would like.

Aluminium Smelters

Sir C. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress made so far with the proposals of the Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation and the British Aluminium Company to produce aluminium in Great Britain; and how he proposes to protect them from Soviet competition in world markets, in view of the fact that Soviet electricity is supplied at one-twenty-fifth the price in the Western world.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he now has for establishing an economic and viable aluminium smelting industry in Great Britain.

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will make a further statement about the establishment of aluminium smelters.

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the estimated total cost to public funds of the aluminium smelter programme.

Mr. Crosland: Negotiations with the British Aluminium Company and the RTZ/BICC consortium are making progress; both I and the companies aim to bring them to a successful conclusion in the near future. Negotiations with Alcan are complete and planning permission has been issued for their smelter and power station. Site preparation work at Lynemouth will begin shortly. I am satisfied that we have adequate powers to deal with any unfair Soviet competition.

Sir C. Osborne: Whilst welcoming the announcement of the decisions, may I ask whether the President of the Board of Trade is aware that the recent Parliamentary Delegation to Siberia was shown great plants which were producing electricity at one-twenty-fifth of our price and that we were told that 60 per cent. of the production of aluminium was from electricity? How can our people compete? Will the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiries and try to safeguard our people?

Mr. Crosland: I was very interested in this part of the hon. Gentleman's Question. I have looked into the figures in great detail. We import a certain

amount from the Soviet Union. The amount has been growing, but it is still quite a small proportion of our total imports of aluminium. If not only the Government but also the companies think that they will be able to compete with fair imports from the Soviet Union, we should take this as being a reasonable commercial judgment.

Mr. Osborn: I regret that there has been this long delay in reaching the decision. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that three separate units will in the end be economic and viable, bearing in mind that the combined capacity of these units will be one-third that designed for a modern aluminium smelting unit in the U.S.S.R. and elsewhere? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that we shall have a competitive aluminium smelter industry at the end of the day?

Mr. Crosland: Yes. Neither the Government nor the three companies concerned would have been spending so much time on detailed negotiations, as we have been, unless we were all of us satisfied that the outcome would be an economic, viable and competitive smelter industry.

Mr. Shaw: As the first announcement on this subject was made in the fresh and heady atmosphere of Scarborough last year by the Prime Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman note that we would much prefer the next announcement to be made to the House rather than in similar circumstances in Blackpool in the autumn?

Mr. Crosland: I do not know why this prejudice against either Scarborough or Blackpool should emerge from hon. Members opposite. I hope that it will be noted by the constituents of the hon. Gentleman and of some of his hon. Friends. I certainly hope to be able to make a further announcement—one, I hope, of a detailed kind—on this subject before the House rises for the Recess.

Mr. Ridley: What will the total cost to public funds of these smelters be? How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly justify this to the E.F.T.A. Council in the face of this absolutely obvious and clear subsidy which we are putting into these smelters?

Mr. Crosland: I cannot say what the cost to public funds will be until the


negotiations are complete. The hon. Member knows full well that we have strongly maintained—I think with considerable support—that no element of subsidy will be involved in the creation of these smelters.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole of Scotland is desperately anxious that we get one of these smelters in Invergordon in the Highlands? Can my right hon. Friend say at this point whether that will be the case and whether there are any objections to it or any other of these projects from our E.F.T.A. partners?

Mr. Crosland: I am well aware that very strong feelings are held in Scotland about the location of one of these smelters at Invergordon. I hope that the negotiations about this will come to a fruition. I have already referred briefly to the E.F.T.A. objections and there is another Question on the Order Paper relating to these.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations there were with the European Free Trade Association countries before October, 1967, about the proposals for establishing an aluminium smelting industry in Great Britain.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): None, Sir. The proposals for expanding the aluminium smelting industry in Great Britain were first raised in the Official Council of E.F.T.A. by the Norwegian Government, following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his speech to the Labour Party Conference at Scarborough on 4th October, 1967.

Mr. Osborn: Is it not deplorable that the Government did not think fit to discuss with our E.F.T.A. partners this important question of aluminium smelting, since they have for some years objected to the whole system of investment grants as providing a means of unfair subsidy to industry, power generation and other activities?

Mr. Dell: I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman should consider it necessary that, on a commercial proposition made by private firms to the Government, which in no way breaches any international regulation, the Government

should consult foreign Governments before coming to a decision. We took account of the interests of the traditional suppliers of aluminium to this country, but we had to make up our own mind on these propositions.

Mr. Milne: Does my hon. Friend agree that talk of disputes with the E.F.T.A. countries regarding the aluminium smelting industry does no service to the industry, to the E.F.T.A. partnership or to the prospect of job opportunities which the industry is presenting to this country?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend will appreciate from the earlier answer given by my right hon. Friend that we are going ahead with the negotiations and we fully intend to have an aluminium smelting industry in this country.

Mr. Lane: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the extent of Government financial assistance for the power station to be constructed for the aluminium smelter at Lynemouth.

Mr. Dell: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 20th June to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).—[Vol. 766, c. 176.]

Mr. Lane: As the right hon. Gentleman was able to tell my hon. Friend practically nothing more this afternoon, can the hon. Gentleman tell us something about the order of the assistance at Lynemouth and in the other two cases still under consideration, though I appreciate that he cannot yet give us full details?

Mr. Dell: It is quite clear that assistance to the alumium projects, as with all other manufacturing investments in developing areas, will consist of investment grants where appropriate and Local Employment Acts grants where appropriate. However, the hon. Gentleman is asking me about the power station, and there is no grant for that. The specific figures for individual companies cannot be given because they are confidential.

Mr. Emery: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost of the Government's contribution per permanent job expected to be provided by the aluminium smelter to be built at Lynemouth.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Information about assistance to individual applicants under the Local Employment Acts is confidential.

Mr. Emery: Does the hon. Lady realise that it is being suggested that this will cost the Government, irrespective of the contributions of industry, over £30,000 per job to be created, and that the sooner we have either denial or acceptance of those figures, the better?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman must learn not to believe what he reads in the newspapers.

Exports (Invisible Earnings)

Sir T. Beamish: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a false impression is given in this country and abroad because of the publication of monthly import and export figures which take no account of the estimated average gain on invisible exports; and if he will include such an estimate in future.

Mr. Crosland: A figure for invisible earnings is now included in the monthly statement on the import and export figures. I think their importance is becoming increasingly understood.

Sir T. Beamish: Since there has been a favourable balance on visible trading account only seven times in the last 175 years, would it not be sensible to incorporate an estimate of the invisible earnings actually in the tables rather than in the accompanying text? Would not this avoid the risk of good figures being made to look bad and bad figures, as at present, being made to look terrible?

Mr. Crosland: I entirely share the objective the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind. He is right to stress to the House how important invisibles have historically been to our trading account as a whole. The difficulty here is a technical one which has been discussed in the House before—that no method has yet been found under successive Governments of getting the invisible monthly figures in time to incorporate them in the monthly trade figures.

Mr. Lane: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the various recommendations in the report of the Bland Committee on

Great Britain's invisible earnings which are still being considered by the Government.

Mr. Hall-Davis: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many meetings have been held by the permanent Committee on Invisible Exports.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what recommendations have so far been made to him by the permanent Committee on Invisible Exports; and when the report of the Committee will be published.

Mr. Crosland: The Committee has held one meeting and plans to hold another next week. In between these quarterly meetings, ad hoc sub-committees are considering particular problems; and the reactions of the interested bodies to the recommendations of the Bland Committee are being assembled. So far as action by the Government is concerned, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) on 29th May.—[Vol. 765, c. 1817–8.]

Mr. Lane: It is now nine months since the Bland Committee reported. Is it not possible for the Government to speed up decisions on the various recommendations on which only Government Departments can take action?

Mr. Crosland: We have taken action already on a number of the recommendations, as I have announced in the House. I should like to speed up any action which the Government ought properly to take. There are so many recommendations that, after thinking of listing them in my Answer, I decided that to do so would make it too long. However, if the hon. Gentleman has one about which he is concerned, I shall be happy to answer a Question on it.

Mr. Hall-Davis: How often, and by what means, will the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Invisible Exports be published?

Mr. Crosland: I regret to say that I cannot answer that without notice. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I shall find out from the Committee, which is an autonomous body not under the control of the Government. I shall ascertain whether the Committee intends to publish anything. I understand


that it does not intend to produce any formal reports but it intends to make recommendations, whether to the Government or to private bodies. I shall check on that and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Is not the right hon. Gentleman somewhat dissatisfied with the rate of growth in invisible earnings over the past three or four years, and will he consider making one of his Ministerial colleagues specifically responsible for invisible earnings, which are essential to the country's solvency?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir, we do not need a special Minister in charge of invisible earnings, almost the whole of which fall within the purview of either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or myself. Lest the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with the position, I can inform him that the average annual rate of invisible earnings over the last four years was £150 million whereas in the first quarter of this year it was running at an average rate of £345 million a year.

Mr. Barnett: Although invisible receipts are good, are not invisible payments worth study, in particular, the outflow on investment here? Will my right hon. Friend consider the implications of this and the dangers inherent in it, in that we might be taking action in allowing investment here for short-term balance of payment gains which might do us long-term harm?

Mr. Crosland: These matters are certainly worthy of study, and I shall give a great deal of attention to the dangers and implications which my hon. Friend has brought to my attention. I gather that he is not calling for any basic change in Government policy.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The House will welcome the belated conversion of the Government to a recognition of the value of invisible earnings in our balance of payments, but will the President of the Board of Trade accept that this will not carry conviction until we see the results in changed fiscal policy, exchange control policy and policy on overseas investment?

Mr. Crosland: It is an innocent enough pastime for the hon. Gentleman to score his little party point. The only thing

which will carry conviction to the country as a whole is the figure which I have already given for the rise in the invisible surplus from an average over the last four years of £150 million to an annual rate in the first quarter of this year of £345 million.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend recall the remarks of his right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer some years ago when he said that the foreign exchange earnings of British industry were 100 times more important to this country than the foreign exchange earnings of the City of London? Does he appreciate that not all of us share the enthusiasm for invisible exports, believing that they have been bought at heavy cost—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must learn to ask brief questions.

Mr. Dickens: —and may we be assured that the Committee on Invisible Exports will examine this aspect of the matter as well as other aspects?

Mr. Crosland: I have been a great student of both the speeches and the writings of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I confess that I do not recall that remark in a fairly voluminous output of words over the past 20 years or so. But I take the point which my hon. Friend has in mind. I shall consider the matter, but one must make plain that, given that invisibles are of great importance to this country in our current account, what we want is the largest possible surplus on invisibles.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken by the British National Export Council to study the question of how far the present system of visible export missions can be extended in its present form, where appropriate, to invisible exports.

Mr. Crosland: No such steps are necessary, since the mission scheme already applies, where appropriate, to invisible exports.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Was not this a strong recommendation of the Bland Committee? Does the hon. Gentleman say that it is already in operation?

Mr. Crosland: It was a recommendation of the Committee, but, as the Government pointed out in the Bland Report, the recommendation seems to have been based on a misapprehension of the present position. The fact is that the mission schemes previously applied, and still applies where appropriate, to invisible exports.

Regional Advisory Committees

Mr. Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to set up Board of Trade Advisory Committees in the Northern region and other regions of the country.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: No. I do not consider that regional committees would offer any advantages over the present system.

Mr. Milne: That is a disappointing reply. Does my hon. Friend realise that, in the light of the schedule of jobs likely to be directed to the Northern region and the other development areas, our job potential would be greatly accelerated if we had in the regions advisory committees with knowledge of the regions and knowledge of the industries required for them?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that much of the preliminary work is already done in the regions, where there are advisory officers and accountants who do a great deal. We think that this is the most efficient way of proceeding, and we shall continually speed up the process here in our headquarters.

Dane Irene Ward: If the hon. Lady does not like her hon. Friend's suggestion, will she tell me what other plans she, the Government or the Prime Minister have to deal with our high rate of unemployment in the North-East? We are not getting on sufficiently because of bad administration.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I cannot accept that. The hon. Lady will be aware that the situation in the North-East has improved considerably in the past few months. Many more jobs have been created, though not as fast as the Government would like. The improvement of B.O.T.AC. procedures is only one small element in the whole question.

B.O.A.C. (Aircraft)

Mr. Corfield: asked the President of the Board of Trade what aircraft are will be adequate to enable the British Overseas Airways Corporation; when delivery is expected; whether he is satisfied that the resultant increase in capacity will be adequate to enable the British Overseas Airways Corporation to retain its existing share of trans-Atlantic passenger traffic; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): B.O.A.C. has on order two Boeing 707s, one of them for use as a freighter, for delivery within the next few weeks; three Super VC10s for delivery between now and February, 1969; and 11 Boeing 747s for delivery between February, 1970 and April, 1972. This increase of capacity should be sufficient to enable B.O.A.C. at least to maintain its share of the market.

Mr. Corfield: Is it not abundantly clear that policies aimed at maximum profit and policies aimed at a maximum share of the market are becoming mutually exclusive, and is it not time that we looked to the regaining of our increasing share of the market by adopting a more liberal attitude to the applications of independent operators?

Mr. Rodgers: There are a number of difficult questions of judgment here. The factors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are relevant, but, as he knows, the Edwards Committee is now sitting, and, as a result of its deliberations, we shall, I am sure, be able to see the way clearer.

Hotel and Tourist Industries

Mr. Hall-Davis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the specific recommendations of the Bland Committee in respect of the hotel and tourist industry; and when he intends to implement them.

Mr. William Rodgers: The Government's proposals for assistance to the hotel industry were described in the White Paper on Hotel Development Incentives (Command 3633) published on 21st May. Estimates have been published separately of international fare payments and of the amounts spent by overseas visitors on goods not included


in the travel account of the balance of payments.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Whilst we welcome the Government's beginning to edge towards taking the advice we have been offering from this side of the House for the past three years, can we now persuade the right hon. Gentleman to bring forward a major and comprehensive programme of assistance to the tourist industry?

Mr. Rodgers: Without accepting the assumption in the hon. Gentleman's question, I think that I can say that we are certainly moving towards a full statement on tourist policy.

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade when, in view of the request of the hotel and catering industry for further clarification of the detailed arrangements in the Hotel Development Incentive Scheme, he will make a further statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: Not at the moment

Mr. Blaker: The Minister will no doubt agree that the main object of the Hotel Development Incentive Scheme is to encourage the industry to produce many more hotel beds rapidly. Does not he agree that the industry might be more prepared to do this at once if it were aware of the conditions which will be attached by the Government to their loan and grant scheme? Cannot a statement be made setting them out?

Mr. Rodgers: I should hink that the industry's first priority would be consultation, and we are now consulting with it prior to introducing legislation.

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce the conclusions of the study of further measures to promote the development of the tourist industry, to which reference was made in paragraph 44 in the White Paper on Hotel Development Incentives.

Mr. William Rodgers: As soon as possible.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Minister aware that the report of the little Neddy recommended specifically that the hotel industry

should be put on a par with manufacturing industry in connection with industrial building allowances and investment grants? Will he bear these points in mind when the statement is being prepared?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes, Sir. I shall certainly bear them in mind. The important thing is to have incentives which are fully tailored to the industry's special needs. That is why we published our White Paper.

Mr. Miscampbell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to implement the recommendation of the Hotel and Catering Economic Development Council that the same assistance should be available to hotels as is extended to industrial establishments.

Mr. William Rodgers: As paragraph 11 of the White Paper on Hotel Development Incentives explains, the Government do not propose to treat hotels in the same way as industrial establishments; instead we propose grants and loans specially designed to meet the circumstances of the hotel industry.

Mr. Miscampbell: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the urgency of help to the hotel industry, because the low return on its investment at present is inhibiting new hotel building, as has been pointed out time and again to the Government?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that there is anything between us on this point, which is that we must help the hotel industry and tourism and so help Britain. Having published the White Paper, the Government will proceed as fast as we can with legislation.

Mr. Higgins: While there is delay in introducing the scheme, the hotel industry continues to bear the heavy burden of the Selective Employment Tax. Taxing the industry on the one hand and distributing money to it on the other is not likely to produce an independent, large industry which will benefit our balance of payments position.

Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of the arguments, but now that we have the White Paper we should all try to help the industry with the provisions we are making for it.

Insurance Industry (Business Statistics)

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress his Department is making in its discussions with the British Insurance Association on the statistical deficiencies relating to the insurance industry portfolio investments, foreign earnings on life insurance business overseas, and the home-foreign underwriting business transacted in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dell: I have received the views of the British Insurance Association, which are to be considered shortly by the Committee on Invisible Exports.

Mr. Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the need for greater information on the subject is important, because the income derived from this source makes up an important part of the insurance market's foreign earnings?

Mr. Dell: In the course of the discussions we are seeing what additional information can be obtained commensurate with the cost of obtaining it.

Sir C. Osborne: How far does the income from this source go towards the startling improvement which the President of the Board of Trade announced this afternoon in invisible exports, with an increase from £150 million a year to the rate of £340 million a year? Does the hon. Gentleman expect this increase to continue?

Mr. Dell: My right hon. Friend was talking about an invisible surplus. The contribution of these figures will not be known until statistics are available.

Cellulosic Fibres (Monopolies Commission Report)

Mr. Emery: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce his decision on the Report of the Monopolies Commission on the supply of man-made cellulosic fibres.

Mr. Crosland: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) on 25th June.—[Vol. 767, c. 56.]

Mr. Emery: As it is now over three years since the reference was made, and

it is four months since the Report has been in the Government's hands, does not the Minister think that the delay is too long? Could not he ensure that a statement is made before the Houses rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Crosland: I do not think that the delay is too long. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have already instituted the tariff review which was recommended by the Monopolies Commission. We have had discussions with the company on the other recommendations, but I do not want to deal with the recommendations in a piecemeal fashion. In view of the importance of the result of the tariff review for getting the whole picture I should prefer to have it, as I hope I will in the next two months, before taking a view on the recommendations as a whole.

Companies (Political Contributions)

Mr. Whitaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that companies who intend to divert shareholders' money to political causes give advance warning of the fact in their prospectus and articles of association.

Mr. Bidwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will introduce legislation to oblige joint-stock companies to seek permission from annual shareholders' meetings before making contributions to political party funds;

(2) if he is aware of substantial sums being donated to the funds of political parties from joint-stock company finances; and if he will introduce legislation to enable shareholders to contract out of such practices.

Mr. Dell: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker), on 29th May, I think that the provision in the Companies Act, 1967, which requires political contributions to be disclosed, is sufficient for the purpose.—[Vol. 765, c. 1800–1.]

Mr. Whitaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have had protests from members of all three political parties whose money, subscribed to a commercial concern, has been diverted without their consent to a political end? Is it not unfair that directors should be allowed to do this with money which does not belong to them?

Mr. Dell: I hope that there are many more protests. The object of giving publicity to these contributions was precisely to enable shareholders to take action if they wished. It is up to the shareholders.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence as yet as to whether there have been any protests or other action by shareholders? If he has not, is that not evidence that they realise that this expenditure is in the best interests of their company and an important way of defending their interests against Socialist economic practices which jeopardise the economic prosperity of the country?

Mr. Dell: I have certainly heard objections by shareholders. It is up to the company to decide, subject to challenge if the shareholders think it appropriate, as to whether such contributions are in the interests of the company.

Mr. Orme: Is my hon. Friend aware that more; information should be given? Could not trade union money invested through unit trusts be used for a form of investment against the interests of the basic aims of the trade unions and thereafter perhaps be subscribed both to Aims of Industry Limited and to the Tory Party?

Mr. Dell: The position is that all the information is given. It is required by law that political contributions shall now be revealed. The suggestion that is being made in these Questions is that the shareholders should have a right to prevent their companies making political contributions. Shareholders now know what the facts are.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, if a shareholder thinks that his company is being run badly he can always contract out?

Mr. Dell: Certainly, it is up to the shareholders to sell his shares if he thinks that the company is being run badly.

Mr. Hynd: While shareholders may contract out from membership of a company, a trade unionist has to contract in or out from a political contribution. Why should not the same conditions apply to a private company as apply to the unions? Will my hon. Friend introduce legislation to this effect?

Mr. Dell: There is a difference in position between companies and trade unions, apart from the administrative problems which would be involved. The difference is that it is easy for a shareholder to contract out if he thinks fit.

Devaluation

Mr. Wall: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent British trade has achieved the higher level of exports required to compensate for devaluation; and how much trade has increased above the pre-devaluation level.

Mr. Crosland: In the three months March to May the sterling value of exports was 15 per cent. higher than in the second and third quarters of last year. In terms of dollars exports are already approaching their pre-devaluation level, and they are still rising.

Mr. Wall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that gross exports have to increase considerably in order to catch up with devaluation? Will he consider publishing the levels of trade in post- and pre-devaluation terms for the next few months?

Mr. Crosland: I will consider any suggestion, but these facts could be deduced fairly easily from the figures we have published.

Mr. James Davidson: Is it not the case that in the same period exports to the E.F.T.A. countries have actually fallen?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. Over the precise period I have described—March to May—as compared with the second and third quarters of last year, exports to E.F.T.A. have risen, although less than our exports to most other major industrial regions of the world. However, in the last three or four months there has been a sharp uprise in exports to E.F.T.A.

Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce (Trade Mission)

Mr. Wall: asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he had with the trade mission from the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: I had a meeting with the leaders of this Mission at which discussion took place on the principal aspects


of our trade and commercial relations. My hon. Friend the Minister of State also received members of the Mission.

Mr. Wall: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on meeting the Mission and hope for added success in this trade, which will do something to counteract the bad effects of the maintenance of the arms blockade on South Africa.

Mr. Crosland: The reasons for maintaining the blockade have been given time and time again, and it does no service to our commercial relations with other countries to conceal that political differences do exist between us. I made it plain that, while there might be political differences with South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, nevertheless we wish to retain good commercial relations.

Import Controls

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the continued rise in the level of imports he will now take steps to impose selective import controls on non-essential imports of manufactured goods and foodstuffs.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the latest trade figures, whether the Government will now introduce import controls.

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir.

Mrs. Short: But if my right hon. Friend was unwilling to consider this matter after devaluation because of the possible effect on the £, does he not now think that the £ has received such massive support that he can reconsider it? Would he not also think that it is a nonsense that the efforts of both sides of industry to gain more exports should be frittered away by this growing rise in the value of imports? Many of the goods are unnecessary. Will my right hon. Friend look at this matter again?

Mr. Crosland: I do not agree with my hon. Friend that there is in logic a case for doing this, having devalued. I always thought that import restrictions of some sort were an alternative to devaluation, but, having devalued, I think that there is very little case for imposing on top of that further import restrictions, and I am very strongly against doing so.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Which do the Socialist Government think preferable in our present difficulties—selective import regulations, or a further twist of the inflationary rack?

Mr. Crosland: Deflationary rack. The Socialist Government think that neither of them is necessary because we still firmly take the view that the devaluation strategy is working and will work.

Soviet Union (Minister's Visit)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. Crosland: I had a most useful exchange of views with Mr. Patolichev, the Soviet Minister of Foreign Trade, about the development of Anglo-Soviet trade, and agreed on a programme for negotiating a new trade agreement to replace the present one, which expires in the middle of next year. I was also pleased to have an opportunity to discuss with Mr. Kosygin, not only Anglo-Soviet trade relations, but also a wide range of world economic issues.

Mrs. Short: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in his discussions, the question of purchases of Soviet oil by this country was raised? Is he aware that it was raised with us when we were in the Soviet Union recently and that it was made clear that we could purchase Soviet oil at competitive prices and that if we did so it could lead to a considerable breakthrough in purchases by the Soviet Government of goods from this country?

Mr. Crosland: The question of Soviet oil was raised, as it has been raised in bilateral discussions with Soviet Russia over many years. My hon. Friend talks about a breakthrough in the sale of British goods to the Soviet Union. If she looks at the export figures for the first few months of this year she will find that they show an almost dramatic rise on any previous similar four-months period.

Sir C. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when the question of oil exports was raised in Baku with the delegation, I explained that we as a sterling area country were surplus sellers and not buyers of oil and, therefore, for


us to buy Soviet oil would not be in the interests of the sterling area? That was accepted. I cannot understand why the question has been raised.

Mr. Crosland: I took the view, when I learned of the visit of this delegation, that a combination of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) ensured that our diplomacy was in safe hands.

Textile Industry (Report)

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now received the Report of the Inquiry into Productivity and Efficiency by the Textile Council; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: The Textile Council expects to let me have its report before the end of the year.

Mr. Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great eagerness in the Lancashire textile towns to see the report? They hope that action will be taken on the basis of positive proposals in it.

Mr. Crosland: I am glad to hear that there is such eagerness in the textile towns, because there was less than complete eagerness among some parts of the textile industry when it came to completing the questionnaire sent out by the Council. I assure my hon. Friend that as soon as the report comes out the Government will give it very urgent consideration.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is not one of the causes of delay in receiving the report that this fact-finding Committee can find no new facts and that all the facts are already known by the Government?

Mr. Crosland: I cannot accept that. I think that when the report is published it will be clear to the House that a number of interesting new facts and methods of analysis have come to light.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that both sides of the textile industry want to know what the Government's policy will be about import quotas when the present trade agreements expire in 1970? We are getting a little bored and restive through being con-

tinuously told that we must await the report. When can we have some action?

Mr. Crosland: I am sorry if my hon. Friend is getting bored and restive. I can only make him more bored and restive by reiterating what I have said many times: I do not propose to take a view about import policy after 1970 until I have had the advantage of seeing the Textile Council's productivity report.

Imports and Exports

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much imports and exports increased in volume over the first five months of the year, as compared with the first five months of 1967.

Mr. Crosland: Imports, excluding military aircraft from the United States, by 8 per cent. seasonally adjusted, and exports by 4 per cent.

Mr. Digby: I am glad that the figures appear to be better for the first three months. Is there not still much evidence of the spending spree sucking in too many imports?

Mr. Crosland: No. To judge by the figures of retail sales, it is fair to say that the spending spree is largely over. If one takes an index of the volume of retail sales, this was running at about 106 in the three months before the Budget and how now come down to 100. This suggests that the spending spree is substantially over.

Mr. Lubbock: If the right hon. Gentleman excludes figures relating to military aircraft imports from the United States, why should he not exclude figures of exports of military aircraft from this country? Will he give the true figures?

Mr. Crosland: The true figures are given, as the hon. Gentleman surely knows, in every monthly Press statement on the trade figures in which we quote figures of imports, with and without military aircraft, from the United States in precisely the same fashion as has been followed in this country for the last 20 years.

Mr. Barnett: Would my right hon. Friend give us some figures relating to his spot checks on retail sales? Some of the figures reported in the Press have


been somewhat confusing. Has he any figures to indicate a more recent trend of retail sales?

Mr. Crosland: As far as we still give spot check figures, they show no change in trend compared with the last monthly figures we published a few days ago. A number of different figures are announced by department stores to the Press, but it is wrong to assume that these stores, which are announcing large increases, are necessarily representative of the retail trade as a whole.

James Galloway &amp; Sons (Balerno)

Mr. Eadie: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from James Galloway and Sons Paper Mill, Balerno, on development area status; and what reply he has sent.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The company has asked that the Scottish development area should be extended to include the parish of Balerno where its factory is located. After careful examination of the company's request, I have explained to the company why this extension cannot be justified in present circumstances.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is the only paper mill in the whole of Scotland which does not have development area status? Would not she agree that the paper industry is under intense competition from E.F.T.A. countries and that it provides employment in a very bad employment area in my constituency?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am very sympathetic with the difficulties facing this paper mill, but I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that many branches of industry find themselves in this difficulty when they are in close relationship with development areas. It would not be possible simply to draw a line round this one paper mill.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is not this merely one example flowing from the exclusion of the whole of the Edinburgh district from the development area? Does not this give rise to grave difficulties in many other industries within this small enclave, which is excluded from the whole development area of Scotland—for instance, in the shipbuilding industry at Leith?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The shipbuilding industry has had assistance in other ways. We sympathise with industries which find themselves just outside development areas, but the areas were extended to assist many more people. It would be foolish to take any action while we are waiting for the Hunt Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION

Air Training Schools (Intake)

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the College of Air Training at Hamble has reduced its pilot intake; and how this will affect its continued existence.

Mr. William Rodgers: The intake has been reduced for the time being because of a cut-back in the number of pilots required by the Corporations. The continued existence of the college is not affected.

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he gave the Oxford Air Training School a contract to train 500 pilots over a period of five years.

Mr. William Rodgers: The Board of Trade has placed no such contract.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am very relieved to hear that statement, but is it not peculiar that such a statement should be made at a time when intake is being reduced? Can I be assured that the College of Air Training at Hamble will still be the chosen instrument for training pilots for the Corporations?

Mr. Rodgers: As I think that my hon. Friend knows, this is really a matter for the Corporations. They have placed contracts both in Oxford and in Perth, because it was necessary to ensure that their maximum needs were met. For the moment the demand is not as high as was previously expected.

Mr. Monro: Can the hon. Gentleman say a little more about the Air Training Schools, particularly Perth and Carlisle? Can he make some confident statement that there is a future for these schools?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question is about Oxford.

Air Freight Services (Regulations)

Mr. Corfield: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that existing regulations governing the chartering of aircraft for the carriage of freight do not restrict the expansion of air freight services by adding unnecessarily to their cost; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: I am not aware that the existing regulations are restricting the expansion of air freight services.

Mr. Corfield: Is it not true that a shipper who has a cargo made up of items from a large number of manufacturers is prevented from chartering aircraft even if this would be much cheaper than paying the itemised rates for the items of which the cargo is made up?

Mr. Rodgers: Under the civil aviation licensing regulations, charter services are defined in what the hon. Gentleman might regard as a fairly narrow way. However, the regulations permit a certain liberty to the Licensing Board, and, as far as I know, the exercise of its present powers has resulted in an increase in freight services rather than the opposite.

Mr. Corfield: Is it not clear that the increase has largely come from increases in cargo carried by passenger transport, and there is an enormous potential for cargo carried by freight aircraft as such? Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter and see whether he can liberalise matters to the maximum, in view of their great importance to Britain's export trade as well as to the airlines?

Mr. Rodgers: I shall look at it in those terms, but, here again, the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is very much a matter for the Edwards Committee and, whereas we must not postpone nececessary action, it would equally be wrong to be precipitate in advance of the full review.

B.E.A. (Re-equipment and Financial Aid)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the latest position regarding the negotiations over compensation payments to British European Airways for not being permitted to order aircraft of their choice.

Mr. McMaster: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects that British European Airways will place their order for 26 Trident 3B aircraft; and when the aircraft is expected to be in service.

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the negotiations between British European Airways, Hawker Siddeley and his Department regarding the provision of financial support for the ordering and operation of the Trident 3B aircraft have been completed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: With permission, I will answer these Questions after Question Time.

A300 Airbus

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be able to announce a decision on British European Airways' orders for the A300 airbus.

Mr. William Rodgers: Any such decision must await the outcome of the studies being undertaken by the British, French and German Governments.

Mr. Fortescue: Since, to state the case as moderately as I can, there is a certain doubt that the A300 will ever be built, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that contingency plans are already in being for the construction of an all-British successor to the Trident 3B for B.E.A. and the world market?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that I can give any such assurance, but B.E.A. is fully aware of the possibilities. I think that we can trust it to be commercially wise and to be fully aware of any developments taking place.

Mr. Corfield: But since negotiations about the A300 are approaching a very difficult and probably critical stage, will the hon. Gentleman bring to the attention of the Prime Minister the very real concern of the aircraft industry and this side of the House over his removal at such a critical moment of the Minister who has had such long experience of dealing with the people concerned and very considerable experience in the technicalities involved?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not know which of two Ministers the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will note what the hon. Gentleman says.

Hotel Accommodation (B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.)

Mr. Onslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has received for capital expenditure on the provision of hotel accommodation in the United Kingdom by British European Airways and the British Overseas Airways Corporation, respectively, in the period up to 1971.

Mr. William Rodgers: No specific proposals for the approval of capital investment are before my right hon. Friend at the moment.

Mr. Onslow: Would the Minister agree that should any such proposal come before him it would be very much more in the public interest that the necessary finance for the essential extension of such accommodation should be found wholly in the private sector?

Mr. Rodgers: Not necessarily, Sir.

Mr. Blaker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the proposal that the nationalised airlines should go into the hotel business and that there is anxiety in the private hotel sector that this may involve unfair subsidies or unfair competition?

Mr. Rodgers: The air corporations have power to go into the hotel business and, indeed, they own some hotels at present. I understand the anxiety expressed by the hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that the air corporations will expect to get a satisfactory commercial return and that there will be no subsidy. Secondly, as the House wishes, the Government's purpose is to ensure that the hotel industry, by whomsoever it may be owned, makes an important contribution towards our tourist trade.

Mr. Corfield: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that, in so far as these hotels are built on land at present belonging to the railway authorities, no specially favourable financial arrangements are made towards the nationalised air corporations as compared with what would be available for independent hotel companies?

Mr. Rodgers: I will take note of that point.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will not this enterprise by the State corporations do a good deal to encourage the tourist trade and bring earnings to this country?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that supplementary question. We want to encourage enterprise everywhere, and this does not rule out the public corporations, which should be allowed to make their proper contribution to the national economy.

Independent Airline Operators (Aircraft Purchases)

Mr. Onslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has formed of the expenditure by independent British airline operators on the purchase of aircraft of United States manufacture in the period up to 1973.

Mr. William Rodgers: There is no reliable basis for making a precise estimate; but recent experience suggests that expenditure of this kind by independent airlines may run at about £10 million a year.

Mr. Onslow: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the lower the figure for purchases of aircraft from America the better for us. Will the hon. Gentleman do his utmost to ensure that our independent operators and manufacturers are in a proper position to provide British aircraft to British airlines?

Mr. Rodgers: The answer is "Yes" to both questions.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that devaluation has made certain British aircraft particularly attractive, which is resulting in changes of mind by some of the airlines mentioned by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)?

Mr. Rodgers: I understand that to be so.

Aircraft Sales (Eastern Europe and China)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the President Of the Board of Trade if he will give details of orders for British aircraft placed by Eastern bloc countries in the


last three years; and what measures he is taking or proposing to take to increase sales of aircraft to these countries.

Mr. William Rodgers: Six BAC 111s were ordered by Roumania earlier this year. No other aircraft have been sold to Eastern bloc countries in the last three years. The full range of Government export services is available to help exporters of aircraft.

Mr. Allaun: I declare that I have no financial interest in any aircraft company. Is it not time that this self-defeating embargo, particularly on sales to China, was ended so that British manufacturers can go all-out to obtain orders before the American manufacturers get them?

Mr. Rodgers: I am in favour of obtaining orders wherever we can, but there is not sufficient evidence that the present regulations and a licensing system which applies to all destinations is hindering the export of aircraft. China is a very special case for a number of quite different reasons.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the President of the Board of Trade what limits are at present placed on sales of British aircraft to Eastern bloc countries by the embargo restrictions; and what steps are being taken to review the embargo list with a view to freeing altogether the export of civilian aircraft to the Eastern bloc.

Mr. William Rodgers: All aircraft exports to all destinations require export licences. Licences are not issued for military aircraft for Eastern bloc countries. For civil aircraft each case is considered on its merits. I see no reason to change this policy.

Mr. Allaun: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Joint Committee of the American Congress has declared that this embargo on sales to China is purely psychological, is detrimental, and that such sales will in no way help Chinese military capacity?

Mr. Rodgers: I was not aware of that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the information. But it still remains the case, as a number of firms which trade to China have discovered, that very special factors are involved. We must

also look at the Chinese world position and be very cautious of taking any step which could conceivably be damaging to our wider interests.

B.E.A. (RE-EQUIPMENT AND FINANCIAL AID)

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 18, 26 and 42.
The House will recall that when the Government decided not to approve B.E.A.'s original choice of American aircraft the then Minister of Aviation gave a pledge, on 2nd August, 1966, that the Government would take steps to ensure that B.E.A. was able to operate as a fully commercial undertaking with the fleet it acquired.
B.E.A. subsequently chose for the first part of its requirement a fleet of 18 BAC111 aircraft, with an option for six more, and this was approved by my predecessor in December, 1966. For the second part of its requirement B.E.A. eventually chose a fleet of Trident 3B aircraft. I announced my approval in principle on 13th March this year, and I have now approved a purchase of 26 Trident 3Bs at a cost of about £83 million, with an option for 10 more. This aircraft is expected to come into service in 1971.
For a number of reasons, including the size of the aircraft in relation to B.E.A.'s needs and the fact that it will not be available until later than B.E.A.'s original choice, B.E.A. is not expected to be able to maintain over the next few years its record of consistent profits. The Government must, therefore, provide financial assistance, in order to fulfil the "Mulley pledge".
I have now agreed with B.E.A. that this will take the form of transferring part of its borrowings from the Government into a special account, which will not bear interest and from which predetermined amounts will be included annually in B.E.A.'s profit and loss account.
In considering the amount to be transferred in this way, I have examined with B.E.A. its forecasts of future financial results. Because such forecasts are subject to increasing margins of error in the


later years, and because we cannot at this stage assess the changes that may result from the work of the Edwards Committee, I have agreed with B.E.A. to make assistance available in the form of an initial transfer of £25 million, with the possibility of a further amount of up to £12½ million for consideration later, should this be needed.
In 1972, the Board of Trade will consult B.E.A. on the basis of experience up to then and of the latest forecasts, to determine whether B.E.A. will still need this further sum of up to £12½ million to be transferred for the period from 1st April, 1972 to 31st March, 1975. The object of this arrangement is to enable B.E.A. to earn a small margin after payment of interest.
I do not propose at this stage to introduce public dividend capital into B.E.A.'s capital structure, but I have told Sir Anthony Milward that this can be considered for the second stage to which I have referred, in the light of B.E.A.'s achievements in the first stage and of the experience we gain from the B.O.A.C. experiment.
I am glad to say that B.E.A. has accepted these arrangements, which will require legislation, as fully discharging the "Mulley pledge". They should enable B.E.A. to weather the problems immediately ahead and to face the future with full confidence in its fine new fleet of British aircraft.
Finally, I must express my appreciation of the co-operation of Sir Anthony Milward and his staff in the protracted discussions which have led to the results I have just announced.

Mr. Fortescue: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we very much welcome this statement? We would like a little more time to study it, because it is complicated, but at least it means that at last B.E.A. will have some aeroplanes. Can we be certain that B.E.A.—which has had to wait for an aircraft not yet off the drawing board while its competitors are already flying in commercial operation the aircraft which B.E.A. originally wanted—will not be badgered about in this way again?

Mr. Crosland: It is only being badgered about because of a decision, which

had a great deal of all-party support, that B.E.A. should not buy American in 1966. I do not think that this was a party political matter. Most hon. Members would think that the decision was right and that the delay has flowed from that.

Mr. McMaster: Will the right hon. Gentleman now reconsider his decision on the BAC211 and support this aircraft, enabling it to come into operation with the Trident, making use of the RB211 which is being developed now solely for American use?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement is very good news for the thousands of my constituents who are employed by Hawker-Siddeley? Does he not consider that this is a very generous settlement for B.E.A.? Is he further aware that the editor of Flight International, only a few weeks ago, argued very strongly that the Trident 3B was a very competitive aircraft which could operate economically without a subsidy of any kind?

Mr. Crosland: I would agree that the Trident 3B, particularly after devaluation, is a very competitive aircraft. Whether it is generous or not, this is a fair settlement. I must make it clear, as I have done earlier, that this settlement is not to make up for the fact that the Trident 3B is not competitive, but for the fact that B.E.A. has not had the aircraft of the size that it wanted at the time that it wanted it, because, with the agreement of both sides of the House, we would not let them buy American two years ago.

Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, not only is this aircraft a good buy for B.E.A., but it is a good investment for the Government, since the aircraft, because of devaluation, should sell very well indeed in world markets?

Mr. Crosland: I am very much obliged for my hon. Friend's comments and entirely accept them.

Mr. Corfield: Although we are all obviously anxious that B.E.A. should have these aircraft, after a very long period of indecision, is the right hon.


Gentleman aware that this is a very large sum? Does it not follow that it is much larger than it need have been, owing to the long delay in the Government making up their mind between the Trident 3B and the 211? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Government really are taking seriously the problems of speeding up this type of decision? I am not making a party point here, because this has been a fault for very many years.
Secondly, is it not also clear that one cannot tell to what extent the Trident 3B will be a less competitive aircraft than the aircraft of B.E.A.'s choice until it is known whether its passenger appeal is such as to command a rather higher load factor which might well offset any disadvantage in operating costs? Would it not be much more sensible to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

Mr. Corfield: Would it not be much more sensible to pay a smaller amount initially, rather than this large amount, until we know what this situation is?

Mr. Crosland: It appears that the hon. Gentleman—and I recognise that it was complicated—has not completely understood the statement. I hoped to make it clear that the aid we are giving is divided into two tranches. If the second tranche of £12½ million should turn out to be not needed—if the total sum turns out to be over-generous—the second tranche will not be paid. This is in addition to the provisions which we already have with B.O.A.C. for reclaiming in various ways any sums that turn out to be superfluous to the Corporation's needs.

Colonel Lancaster: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the concern felt by the Select Committee when it discussed this matter, particularly the subject of aircraft procurement. It took the view that it was not wise to invest in aeroplanes which subsequently required Government subsidies. Does the right hon. Gentleman, in view of what he

has said today, recognise that it might have been wise to proceed with the BAC211 rather than with the "stretched" version of the Trident?

Mr. Crosland: I have paid great attention to the Report of the Select Committee, which was extremely helpful. I should have commented on that just now. Its strictures on the methods of decision-making were justified, and we certainly must improve matters. Nothing it said gave any support to the opinion that we should have bought the BAC211 rather than the Trident 3B, because the BAC211 would have needed a much larger launching cost aid from the Government than the Trident.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is a danger that this payment of £25 million to be initially transferred to B.E.A. will encourage slackness and inefficiency? Will he do everything to discourage the impression, which is bound to permeate abroad, that this is a payment in respect of the less economical operating costs of British aircraft?
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the £12½ million additional will be made whether or not these subsequent orders for the option are placed? Can he say, if the options are taken up resulting in a much lower unit price, that the extra £12½ million will not be paid?

Mr. Crosland: Whether B.E.A. has the second £12½ million will depend on a joint examination of the whole position at the end of the first four years. One cannot tell four years in advance.
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have made it clear again and again, as he and others have, that this is not a subsidy to cover the fact that the Trident 3B or British aircraft generally are less economic. This is to compensate B.E.A. generally because, as a result of Government decisions, it could not have the aircraft of the size it wanted at the time it wanted because we said that it was not to buy American.

VOLUNTARY SERVICE

Mr. John Cordle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide opportunities in the United Kingdom for voluntary service by young persons.
There has been a good deal of talk recently about the need to encourage a sense of participation by individuals in the running of the community's affairs. It is not only the events in France which have stirred up discussion about this topic. In this country the obvious over-centralisation of power and decision-making has been pinpointed as the major factor in alienating the individual from society. I believe that it is vitally important to enable people to make some contribution to the development of their community.
I am not sure that reform of the machinery of government is necessarily the way to do this. Frankly, I am certain that what we have to do is to restore the individual's social r61e, and, in particular, I believe that more than ever today we have to create conditions in which the young can participate in society. That is the main reason that I have sought leave of the House to introduce my Bill. I am sure that we would all agree that the young could and, indeed, frequently do, make a significant contribution to the social services in the widest sense.
Dwelling for a moment on the question of students, we hear a lot these days about "student power". Unfortunately, it only ever seems to refer to their ability to flex their political muscles and put the fear of God into university vice-chancellors and university senates. I would prefer to think of "student power" in terms of what contribution students can make to community service.
I recognise, of course, the initiative that the Government took last November in the sphere of voluntary work. We should all be grateful for the hard work of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Smallheath (Mr. Denis Howell) in launching the Young Volunteer Force Foundation, despite the many difficulties which I understand he experienced.
However, I do not think that this scheme is nearly adequate for our needs. I share many of the reservations which have been expressed about it; in particular, the view

expressed in the Annual Report for 1966–67 of Community Service Volunteers, that
the Department of Education's recommendations seem to concentrate on stimulating young people to volunteer, rather than opening up new fields of service.
There is, of course, no shortage of people and groups actively interested in community service for young people, nor is there any shortage of young people who are prepared to volunteer for service. But there is—and here no Government have made the sort of contribution which is necessary—a shortage of opportunities for service.
One of the main purposes of my Bill is to correct this situation. What we clearly need is a new direction of our efforts in this sphere if we are to create nation-wide what some have called "the social counterpart of Outward Bound". At present, we are being held back by a lack of vision. There is a general reluctance to accept what voluntary service can offer. We had a good example of this last year, when, following the "Torrey Canyon" emergency, no public authority could be found to accept the voluntary help offered by the International Voluntary Service Organisation. This is precisely the sort of attitude that impedes the development of voluntary service by the young. The scope of voluntary service is wider than many are prepared to concede.
In an article in the Guardian last year, Mr. Alec Dickson put the point very well when he wrote:
We have now to move beyond the concept of the Welfare State, dependent upon a small cadre of professional workers, towards the ideal of a participant society involved in the care of others.
This summarises exactly my own feelings on this subject.
The purpose of my Bill is quite simply to recognise the fact that there is a great potential for individual action in the social services. I have, naturally, considered whether or not community service should be compulsory for the young. The proponents of this argument put forward a strong case. They suggest a sort of substitute for military national service which would oblige young people to spend, say, a year after leaving school working in some capacity in community service. I have rejected this argument,


which is attractive in many ways, because I believe that the great virtue of service by young people is precisely that it is voluntary; that they are willingly making their own contribution to the community.
The first part of my Bill is concerned with the question of co-ordinating the activities of voluntary service organisations. It will set up a body, analogous in some way to the Arts Council, which would act as a channel and distributing agency for Government grants and also as a link between all the organisations at present at work. This Voluntary Service Council would also provide advice on matters such as fund-raising and would actively campaign on behalf of voluntary service to open up the social service to volunteers.
The second part of my Bill deals with the question of opening up more opportunities for service. I believe that Government Departments and local authorities should be obliged to provide openings for voluntary service in all forms of community work. In the Health Service it would be sensible surely to revise our hospital regulations so that school leavers below the age of 17 could help in wards where there is acute understaffing. Many hospitals already have reason to be thankful for the co-operation of slightly older volunteers.
Again, young people could be encouraged by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to take part in urban renewal schemes. This already happens in the United States. There is no reason why young volunteers should not be used to help in the face-lift housing operations which so many of our declining and twilight areas badly need. Even the work of clearing and perhaps planting derelict sites would enable young volunteers to make a real contribution to the redevelopment and revitalising of their communities.
The Department of Education could stipulate the inclusion of voluntary service in school curricula and set an example by encouraging the use of volunteers in deprived areas to provide some of the facilities which the schoolchilden there lack.
Regional Economic Development Councils should examine ways in which the young could help to improve their environs. The improvement of environment is often, after all, the single most

important factor in developing the economies of the regions.
The Department of Employment and Productivity could encourage the recruitment of young unemployed people into voluntary service. The community service organisations already accept unemployed youngsters as volunteers, working, quite rightly, on the principle that no volunteer should ever be turned away. It is particularly destructive to a youngster's self-confidence and belief in society for him to be without a job on leaving school, or soon afterwards. I would like to see the Department's officers give young people the opportunity, while they are out of work and looking for a job, to join in local community service work.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that he is seeking leave to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minute Rule. We have nearly reached 10 minutes,

Mr. Cordle: I shall finish within a minute, Mr. Speaker.
The Home Office could also encourage voluntary service by, for example, examining ways of involving young people in the probation service and by ensuring that in emergencies there is always adequate machinery for channelling the activities of local voluntary organisations.
Finally, I believe that local authorities should appoint an officer and, where appropriate, a committee with the responsibility of seeking out ways of making use of young local volunteers and of helping to co-ordinate the activities of local organisations.
These are only a few thoughts on the way in which the Government, at both national and local level, might expand the opportunities for voluntary work by young people in our community.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cordle, Mr. Speed, Mr. Gurden, Mr. John Page, Mr. Randall, Dr. Broughton, Mr. Body, and Mr. J. H. Osborn.

VOLUNTARY SERVICE

Bill to provide opportunities in the United Kingdom for voluntary service by young persons, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 28th October, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

Orders of the Day — HOVERCRAFT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: As is my custom, I have posted up my list of provisional selection of Amendments. The first Amendment is No. 3.

Clause 1

POWER TO MAKE ORDERS IN COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO HOVERCRAFT

3.51 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 7, at end insert:
(b) to establish a Hovercraft Registration Board which shall be charged with the duty of securing the registration of hovercraft and of carrying out such of the obligations, terms and conditions contained in this section of this Act as the President of the Board of Trade may at any time determine.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) put forward an Amendment and a new Clause the effect of which would have been to give the Government power to set up by Statutory Instrument a Hovercraft Registration Board. The Amendment and the Clause were not acceptable to the Government, but the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary struck me as being clearly sympathetic to the principle behind the proposals. She said:
… while I wish to make it clear that the Amendment and new Clause are unacceptable, I would be prepared to consider bringing forward on Report a considered reply relating to the principle rather than the actual wording of the Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Stand-ins Committee D, 18th June, 1968; c. 40.]
On that assurance, my hon. Friend sought the leave of the Committee, which was granted, to withdraw his proposal. The Government have not seen fit to bring forward an Amendment to give effect to that common purpose, so it has fallen to this side of the House to do so. The hon. Lady did me the courtesy of writing to me to explain why she felt unable, on reflection, to bring forward her own Amendment, and I shall in a moment discuss her objections and endeavour to remove them from her mind.
I think that I should, first, explain as briefly as I can why it is necessary to take powers to set up a Hovercraft Registration Board. In considering the Amendment it is important for the House to be clear that this is an enabling Bill, that it is a strategic Bill. The guts of what follows from it will be in the Orders made from time to time as the President of the Board of Trade sees fit. What we are trying to do is to forecast the future as far as we can and to ensure that the structure of the Bill will accommodate that future, and, therefore, future Presidents of the Board of Trade will not find themselves having to deal with problems on which they want to take action and make Orders, but which have not been allowed for in this enabling Bill. This is our last opportunity to provide for that.
Why do I think it right to write these powers into the Bill? As my Amendment is; drafted, we are not suggesting that as soon as the Bill becomes an Act the President of the Board of Trade should go off and set up this Board. All we are doing is taking power so that if he wishes to do so in future, and deems it sensible, he has power to take that action.
The hovercraft is neither a ship nor an aircraft. It is a new method of propulsion in its own right, and this has been agreed throughout our discussion. It is the application of the air cushion principle, but, again as we have made clear, there can be many applications. During our discussions we have agreed that the Bill should be limited to the application of the air cushion principle to vehicles and not to other forms of equipment, so that is out of the way.
However, even with vehicles we see a widening range of applications opening up ahead of us. We have agreed that the Air Registration Board has done a good and clean job of work. We pay tribute to it, and particularly to the Hovercraft Requirements Committee of the A.R.B., but I think that the House will agree that the A.R.B. was given this job when the hovercraft first appeared on our national seascape on the basis of it being the most convenient instrument at hand to fulfil the regulatory purposes now embodied in the Bill. I believe that in the long term it is an unfair diversion of the A.R.B.'s activities to expect it to follow every

future application of the air cushion principle, and that the case for a separate Hovercraft Registration Board becomes stronger.
If I interpret the hon. Lady's views correctly, I do not believe that there is anything between us on the principle of this issue. I think that we are broadly agreed that, as those who have followed the issue know, whereas the A.R.B. has been dealing with these problems, Lloyd's Register of Shipping has been making its claim to be involved in these problems. We went into this in some detail in Committee, and I shall not weary the House by going over Lloyd's claims again.
I acknowledge the recent efforts by the Board of Trade to bring the two bodies together to agree on joint action, to agree on joint standards, and so on, but I believe that to write into the Bill this purpose of there ultimately being a Hovercraft Registration Board will have a catalytic effect on the discussions which the hon. Lady's Department is sponsoring. I say that because, without being unfair either to Lloyd's or to the A.R.B., if there is no future intent to have a separate and independent Hovercraft Registration Board, almost inevitably, such is the nature of things, there will be a certain jostling for position to decide who controls what.
Lloyd's feels that it has been left out of the act. It is not for me to say whether that is so, but no doubt Lloyd's will endeavour to get its fair share of the problems and the responsibilities. I believe that it will assist co-operation between Lloyd's and the A.R.B. if we write into the Bill an Amendment along the lines I have proposed. We were agreed on Second Reading that in the future there would be a case for an independent Board such as we are proposing, and the issue therefore between us is whether it is right to set it up under the Bill. We are agreed strategically. What we now have to decide is the tactical issue.
In these matters of safety, for which the A.R.B. has been responsible in respect of air traffic, for which Lloyd's has been responsible in respect of ships, and for which I am suggesting this Board should be responsible in future in respect of hovercraft, one must draw a distinction between what is necessary at the design


stage, and what is necessary at the operating stage.
4.0 p.m.
On the whole, it is rather easier to deal with operating standards than with design standards. One does not need to be so forward-thinking in dealing with safety regulations at the operating level. The problem of designing for safety at the beginning—at the experimental and drawing board levels—is of a different order. At least, it needs staff of a higher engineering calibre, and certainly of more imagination.
A recent publication of the A.R.B. puts the matter very clearly. It says:
The A.R.B. has frequently emphasised that the hovercraft is a new type of vehicle, embodying both aircraft and marine concepts. It varies considerably from type to type, but all tend like aircraft to be sensitive as regards weight. This leads to their using light forms of structure, similar to those developed in aircraft manufacture, and often to highly-rated propulsion and lifting units. These features demand careful judgment if the economic balances between first cost, running cost and payload-speed performances are to be achieved in a way which suits the intended market. For this, the designer needs the freedom given by having the safety requirements stated as objectively as possible, with detailed interpretations presented as examples. The safety authority needs to be able to adapt itself quickly to new complex problems, and to work in close collaboration with constructors, operators and others directly concerned.
The hon. Member for Barrow-in Furness (Mr. Booth) made a very fair point in Committee when he said that he doubted whether Lloyd's was flexible enough to fall into these credentials.
These are the credentials needed. There must be a working partnership between the regulatory authority on safety standards and the designers, otherwise the designers may waste a lot of time and energy only to find that they were not thinking along the same lines as were those ultimately responsible for laying down safety standards.
We can see the relevance of this when we consider the tracked hovercraft which is being developed under the auspices of the N.R.D.C. This lies outside the field of operations of the A.R.B. and Lloyd's, yet it is essential at an early stage to have a regulatory body charged with the responsibility for ultimately laying down safety standards for a tracked hovercraft,

with which the N.R.D.C. engineers can work as soon as possible. That is essential, otherwise we are in grave danger of producing a tracked hovercraft which will come up to all the performance standards set down by the N.R.D.C. only for those ultimately charged with safety requirements to examine it and discover many features which are unacceptable to them.
With this, as in regard to every other form of construction, it is essential that safety standards should be written in at the design stage, which means, in human terms, that there must be a permanent working arrangement. The more the hon. Lady's Department reflects on this the more it will see that the need to set up a separate Hovercraft Registration Board will come earlier rather than later.
We must also consider the possible use of nuclear reactors in marine hovercraft. I have here a paper that I have received from the Atomic Energy Authority on this matter, which points out that although, at this moment, there is no nuclear reactor system that in terms of weight-payload would make sense—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not dealing with the question whether nuclear reactors may be used for hovercraft; we are debating whether there should be a separate Hovercraft Registration Board.

Mr. Price: Yes, Mr. Speaker. But I suggest that if this is a possibility—as this is an enabling Bill—it becomes all the more important to have a separate Board.
I suggest that the A.R.B. has no experience of nuclear-powered units, and that if such a development is a possibility—and it is unlikely that there will be legislation in this respect for some years—it is a consideration in support of writing into the Bill a power for the Government to set up an independent Hovercraft Registration Board. That is my reason for raising this point. I need not develop the theme that nuclear reactors are of a different order to current power units in hovercraft.
It is also an argument for setting up a statutory body. Some people say that we could set up a board which was not a statutory body, but in respect of the development of British nuclear reactors, the House has always found it necessary


to charge Government Departments with the responsibility for regulating safety standards. Therefore, a private company like the: A.R.B. would be inappropriate.
The Minister will no doubt argue on the terms set out in her letter. She will probably say that she does not disagree with me in broad principle, but that it is not necessary to write this provision into the Bill. In her letter she gives a number of reasons which cannot be dismissed lightly and which I want to comment on. First, she points out that the aircraft industry did not require a statutory body when the A.R.B. was set up and that Lloyd's is a private, non-statutory body. I suggest that if we were considering setting up the A.R.B. today and not, as was the case, considering it in conditions pre-Second World War, I suspect that whoever were the Government would have made it a statutory body. The reason why it is not a statutory body is an historical one and to me that is not a persuasive reason for rejecting my proposal.
The hon. Lady also pointed out that under her Department's present thinking such a Board would be delegated only limited functions, and, therefore, she does not think that a statutory body is required. The Amendment goes a little wider and says that the Registration Board
shall be charged with the duty of securing the registration of hovercraft and of carrying out such of the obligations, terms and conditions contained in this section of this Act as the President of the Board of Trade may at any time determine.
I would see this Board not only dealing with matters of registration but, as the years go by, taking on a more executive responsibility from the President of the Board of Trade who of course would remain in overall charge. In other words, the Board would be his executive arm. I shall not attempt to suggest at what moment the right hon. Gentleman would feel that any of the responsibilities spelt out in the Bill could be delegated to the board.
The final reason why the hon. Lady does not wish to accept the Amendment is that a statutory body would necessarily be independent from the A.R.B. and Lloyd's Register. Of course it would. She says:

A statutory body would necessarily be independent from the A.R.B. and Lloyd's Register and it would be expensive to set up the paraphernalia of an expert headquarters and outpost staff for such a small industry. It is doubtful whether the expense could be justified or borne by the industry.
That is an argument, but I am not suggesting that it should be done now; indeed, I am not making it mandatory that it should ever be done. I am merely writing in a power for it to be done if it becomes necessary. I suggest that the Board would be a child of the A.R.B. It would flow out of the A.R.B., and we could well see some overlapping membership of the council of the Board and the A.R.B.
It is interesting that this very lunch-time the Chairman of the Air Registration Board, Lord Kings Norton, made a speech in which he said, in front of the hon. Lady's master, the President of the Board of Trade:
if you decide in the long term there should be a Hovercraft Registration Board for dealing with hovercraft safety you may be sure of the help of my Board in devising an appropriate pattern for it, and bringing it into being.
Since we discussed these matters in Committee, I have made inquiries outside, not least of which were of some of the regulatory bodies, and all that I have heard persuades me that it would be right to make the Amendment and to write in these powers.
Again, I emphasise that the powers are not mandatory but permissive, and that I am putting no time scale on it. I would have thought that this would be a convincing argument, even for the Government.

Mr. Albert Booth: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) has argued very persuasively for the establishment of a Hovercraft Registration Board, and, having served with him on the Committee, I am certain that he is motivated by the very best considerations of the hovercraft industry and those who will serve it. However, I would urge some caution against accepting too readily the idea of the Amendment.
I believe that, to establish an effective Board, we must first consider some of the details. We must clearly define one of two things—either what is a hovercraft for the purposes of such a Board or what


are the Board's responsibilities. One might question whether the latter is possible without the former. I do not want to enter that argument, but merely insist that one would have to be done before an effective Board would be possible—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, does not Clause 4 define a hovercraft?

Mr. Booth: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that Clause 4 defines a hovercraft, but I wish to argue that this definition is not sufficient—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that on this Amendment. He had his opportunity in Committee. Unless there is an Amendment to Clause 4 about the definition, he cannot go into the definition now.

Mr. Booth: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I take it to mean that, if I wish to argue against the Amendment, I must do it on the acceptance of the definition which is in the Bill.
That makes my case somewhat easier, because the definition of hovercraft in the Bill at the moment is wide, for a number of reasons, but so wide as to make it very difficult precisely to define the functions of a Registration Board, since one would have to assume that it would be responsible for all the hovercraft which could be covered by that definition.
The definition is so wide as to lead certain hon. Gentlemen opposite to say in Committee that it might also cover helicopters; on the same lines of argument, it might also cover a vertical takeoff aircraft. Therefore, we are now considering the establishment of a Hovercraft Registration Board against a very wide definition of hovercraft, so we must consider the problems which this, of itself, presents.
One of the problems, which we considered in Committee, was the question of the insurance of these vehicles. We considered them as vehicles. It would be unwise to establish any board for the registration of hovercraft unless it could have a function related to defining insurance requirements. We have two forms of vehicle insurance, either of which can be used to judge what is an appropriate form of insurance for hover-

craft. There is the form used by aircraft and the other, that used by ships.
It would be beneficial, at least for a short time, I think, not to tie hovercraft insurance to the form used on ships, because our experience of Lloyd's and other agencies, such as Norsk Veritas and the American Bureau of Shipping, has led us to a situation in which a ship designer looks at the rules of the insurance bureau almost before the specification of the vessel which he is to build, which itself is very much circumscribed by the requirements of the Registration Board.
4.15 p.m.
On the other hand, other criteria apply to aircraft, which give the designer far greater latitude to make a vehicle which will meet a specific function. This is because one of the major factors in determining aircraft insurance is the operator's competence to maintain and organise the operation of the vehicle concerned. This, of course, with a hovercraft as much as with any other vehicle, must be a major factor in determining safety. The engines of a hovercraft are, at present, much more akin to aircraft engines than to marine engines and, therefore, many of the criteria applying to aircraft insurance, in so far as the aircraft is dependent on its engines for safety, can reasonably be applied to the hovercraft.
However, this is not to say that this will always be so. In a few years, the lines of development may become much clearer and there might be types of hovercraft which are so clearly definable as different from ships and aircraft as we now know them that we could have a Board which could deal properly with the specific problems which they raise. But, in the meantime, I am still afraid that the freedom of the designer could be severely circumscribed by setting up such a Board, which would almost automatically address itself to specific insurance requirements for the vehicle concerned.
There is as yet no proof that the dividing line between the hovercraft and the aeroplane and between the hovercraft and the ship will become any clearer in the immediate future. There may well be a period during which the different definition lines are even more blurred


before the clear lines of demarcation emerge.
One can, for example, imagine that, with the development of the hydrofoil, the plane vessel, we may have exactly the same or very similar types of navigational problems as we have at present with hovercraft. Therefore, there may be some argument regarding the advisability, for registration, of tying hovercraft, if we moved towards a Registration Board, to the navigational rules of the ship.
On the other hand, one can see the possibilities of a further blurring of the line between the hovercraft and the aircraft through various forms of assisted take-off which are at present being considered in the design stage. I may be over-sensitive about this—

Mr. Peter Bessell: I was not on the Committee, but I am interested in the hon. Member's point. Can he help me by telling me whether he considers that, under Clause 4, the definition of a hovercraft would include a hydrofoil plane?

Mr. Booth: In my opinion, it would not include the hydrofoils at present being used, partly because they are supported by water on their planing surface rather than by air. On the other hand, I can see the possibility of one wishing to conserve a considerable amount of the power or energy used for the propulsion as opposed to the lift in future, this being one of the principles of hydrofoils, and of someone combining the principles of hydrofoil and hovercraft.
There is no theoretical barrier to having a vehicle which, in favourable conditions, can operate as a hydrofoil and in certain other conditions can operate as a hovercraft, and I do not wish to set up any machinery which would hinder that development, for it could be a useful line to explore.
I represent a constituency which is faced with problems of inland communications. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, having been to my constituency, knows some of its communications problems and appreciates my wishful thinking along the lines that I might be able to take a quick trip across Morecambe Bay in a hovercraft. That might enable me to reach the House much more

quickly. But if we are to operate such a vehicle in such conditions, we must be prepared to think in terms of very flexible vehicles. One such example of the need to be flexible concerns the possibility of our having vehicles which are truly amphibious, capable of operating on roads—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member is going into too much detail about these craft and about the competing claims of different craft rather than debating the general principle of the Amendment concerning a Registration Board.

Mr. Booth: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will give no further examples. I hope that those which I have given will suffice.
I see two major functions for a Hovercraft Registration Board. One is the establishment and maintenance of safety standards. With that must be coupled the ability to define the responsibility to the public in respect of those standards of those who design and operate hovercraft. I am convinced that we have not yet reached the stage at which we can set up the definition of standards and the requirements of design or operation. While I hope that Clause 1(1)(a) will give the Minister sufficient power to bring in the kind of registration which is necessary to encourage any desirable development, I hope that we shall do nothing by setting up machinery which could restrict development at this juncture.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I hope that the Minister will not reject these powers which, as has been emphasised, she need never use. We are in very early days with the hovercraft and it is a little difficult to see the lines along which we shall develop, but I am certain that sooner or later we shall need a Hovercraft Board.
It will probably be a long time before another Hovercraft Bill is brought before the House. Why not, therefore, take the powers? If the present Minister does not want to use them, possibly one of her successors will want to do so. In Committee, when justifying her refusal to have a separate Board, she prayed in aid the various powers which she could use under various Statutes to help to regulate hovercraft. That may be very convenient for the Board of Trade, but it is very


confusing for those who wish to use these vehicles.
The hon. Lady mentioned a series of Acts—the National Insurance Act, 1965; the Post Office Act, 1953; the Companies Act 1967; the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; and the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. That is somewhat of a hotch-potch, and people who are starting in a new industry already have a lot to think about without having to look up Acts which were put on the Statute Book 70 years ago. Sooner or later, it will be necessary to deal with this matter separately.
The Government's approach to the new development, as is so often the case, has been to use the powers which they already have. It is very disappointing that hovercraft are put under British Railways and that we have the British Rail Hovercraft Limited. That is a little inhibiting of the development of a new service, although I am sure that Commander Brindle is doing a very good job in the circumstances.
In the same way, the Minister is seeking to take refuge, on the one hand, in the comparison with shipping and, on the other, in the comparison with air. Although this is quite a separate type of vehicle, in construction it is rather like an aircraft in that it is likely to require a fairly light construction with a smaller amount of metal for safety than would be expected in a ship. Yet, as we see it at the moment, in operation it is more like a ship at sea than it is like an aircraft. It is difficult to see what it will be like when it operates on land.
In the information which we have been given, we are told that there is already in existence a Hovercraft Design and Construction Committee under Admiral Sir Matthew Slatterly. That recognises that there are special problems for hovercraft which do not altogether fit the analogy of an aircraft or of a ship. The Minister could do no harm by accepting the idea of a separate body for hovercraft, even if she did not set it up immediately. It would be far better for her to put the provisions into the Bill than for a future Government to have to bring forward a separate Bill to take these powers.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: May I emphasise a point in

relation to what happened in the House earlier today on the Race Relations Bill, when the atmosphere was very different from the present atmosphere.
One of the arguments which arose time and time again on that Bill was that it would not be possible to bring forward amending legislation for three years, or even five years. If that is true of a very important and highly explosive subject such as race relations, is it not inconceivable that the Parliamentary Secretary will be unlikely to get the time of the House again during the present five-year tenure of office to deal with hovercraft, except for regulations? If and when another Government come into office, they will be so concerned with various other matters that it is unlikely that time will be found to legislate about hover-Craft.
I therefore underline the essentially permissive nature of what we are asking the hon. Lady and the Ministry to do. They are not obliged to set up this Board immediately, although I shall advance reasons why they should do so. Indeed, they would not be obliged ever to set it up. They could not be forced to do so, although obviously it would assist in laying down guide lines along which various parties could pursue their part of the negotiations. That was why my hon. Friends and myself, and other hon. Members, moved in Committee a proposal, in a slightly different form from the new Clause, for the establishment of a Hovercraft Registration Board.
As I understand, the Minister is not necessarily opposed to having a Hovercraft Registration Committee. The argument appears to be whether it is necessary at the moment to have a statutory Board. I will summarise reasons why I believe that a statutory Board is necessary and why it should be an independent body for hovercraft. First, there are two quite separate elements in the enabling Bill. One concerns construction and design. That is one element. Not only the manufacturers and designers but, more particularly, those concerned with the Aircraft Registration Board recognise that such a statutory body would be of immense importance in giving guidance and assistance.
4.30 p.m.
The second part of this enabling Measure is concerned with operational safety


and control; that is, the day to day management of the operations of hovercraft. Other countries have hitherto decided, rightly or wrongly, that this is primarily a marine question. In that event, it is a question first and foremost for the marine department of the Board of Trade, and then for Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the engineers and agents of which are of great value throughout the world.
Having said that, it should be made clear that these people are not exclusive in this matter, since there will shortly be people like Hoverlloyd, in my constituency, becoming the first major operators in the physical operation of hovercraft. Hoverlloyd and those who are concerned in the operations of hovercraft are, of course, concerned with construction and production—nothing to do with A.R.B. or Lloyd's—and they, too, would like to see a Hovercraft Registration Board. They have expressed this opinion. At recent inter-Ministerial committee meetings some business men have been forthright, while others have not, in making it plain what they would like to see established in this sphere.
I emphasise that not only the Aircraft Registration Board would be happy to see the establishment of a Hovercraft Registration Board, but that so would the future main operators and those concerned in the construction side of the industry. Nor do I believe that Lloyd's and similar people would take great objection to such a board's establishment.
I believe that such a statutory body would achieve four factors. First, it would have independent and separate status. This is a new industry and such a status would make the board feel worthwhile. While it may be said that this is not all that important, I believe that it is because it would mean the establishment of an independent body, the first of its kind in the world, for this major new industry in which Britain at present holds the lead. The mere setting up of a wholly independent statutory body such as this would carry considerable prestige.
Secondly, there must be a regulatory body which is broad-based and, if it is to be effective, it must be regulatory to cover the design and construction as well as the safety and operational require-

ments. Drawing from my experience of the Factories Acts, with which I used to have a great deal to do, I suggest that, for example, the old 1937 Act covers all the safety requirements with which a Ministry can deal perfectly well—for example, the Ministry of Labour in its sphere and other Ministries in other directions—and then there are the courts to carry out the after-effects which arise. When one is dealing with design in co-operation with the expertise of the Ministry of Technology in this matter, one must consider to what extent that affects the regulatory power. Where this power is as wide as it may be in this case, I believe that the whole issue should become the subject of a statutory board which would be responsible and able to give and take advice in all directions.
Thirdly, it would obviate the natural competitive conflict which exists at present. This is a proper conflict. It is the competition of ambition between A.R.B. on the one side—I described it in Committee as one of the competitors for the lady's attention—and Lloyd's Register of Shipping on the other. The Ministry comes into it as well from the point of view of control over the industry.
I believe that the majority of people take the view that it is better, where there are conflicting interests of this kind, to resolve these differences by having a separate board which comprises all the interests concerned on a fair balance. The balance will, of course, be held by the President of the Board of Trade, who will naturally be ultimately responsible for nominating the chairmanship and having control of such a statutory board.
Fourthly, because we are dealing with a wholly new animal—an air-cushion vehicle whose extent and range we do not yet even know—we have found it difficult to decide what should be in the Bill. One need only consider, for example, the agricultural aspect. The hovercraft will probably become the greatest vehicle the world over for the spraying of crops. We find the hover-train in development. Consider the extent of the export trade which may develop in the various types and classes of hovercraft.
Because this is a totally new form of transport communication, because it will change our whole concept of mechanical


handling—for example, the Ministry and others will be able to carry by hovercraft abnormal loads of a new kind; these loads will probably not be able to be carried in any other way—and because we must envisage a saving in costs and burdens placed on our roads through these new devices, we should recognise at this stage that we are dealing with something that is more important than the railways, more important than our road programme, and that this is an entirely new sphere of comunication. We should not at this stage limit the Minister by forbidding him to hold the power to set up such a board.
We must be a litle humble about all this. This is not like discussing race relations, where one may hold an absolute view—as I do; I expressed definite views in the early hours of the morning about an Englishman's home being his castle. On the question of hovercraft, I do not wish to express any view which claims to have any master knowledge of the subject. My hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt), who has considerable knowledge of the operation and working of hovercraft in their present form, would agree with this. It is for this reason that the Government should have the ability to establish the sort of Board we have in mind, particularly since this enabling Bill is extraordinarily wide.
I would very much regret it if the Government did not take the powers which we are inviting them to take. This would be better than waiting until my hon. Friends are returned to power, when we will then be faced with the unenviable task of trying to find time to arrange for the establishment of the necessary statutory board. I feel sure that the Minister will want to set up such a body, particularly remembering the wide range of advice and assistance that will be necessary to govern the use of hovercraft.

Mr. Mark Woodnutt: I hesitate to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) because I agree so thoroughly with all that he said except for one thing. I must point out that the first major operators will not be Hoverlloyd, in his constituency, because al-

ready Hovertravel, in the Isle of Wight, is now in its third summer of regular scheduled operation.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I should have said "cross-Channel".

Mr. Woodnutt: I concede that to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friends have expertly advanced arguments which should convince the Minister of the correctness of her accepting the Amendment. I refer once more to the opening lines of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum:
This Bill recognises that the hovercraft is a vehicle of a new kind which is neither a ship nor an aircraft; and accordingly the Bill makes new provision for regulating hovercraft …
That being so, it seems to be within the spirit of the express intention of the Bill that the Minister should have power to set up a Hovercraft Registration Board, so recognising that this revolutionary method of transport is neither ship nor aeroplane. The Amendment provides an opportunity for the Minister to widen the powers in the Bill, and to improve it. We agree that the powers should be very wide, as this is an enabling Measure and we do not know for what we will be legislating in the future.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), who has very closely followed the proceedings on the Bill and has made some very worthwhile contributions to our Committee debates, just now advised the House to exercise caution in accepting this Amendment. In support of his argument he explained how difficult it was for insurance purpose, and all sorts of other purposes, to decide whether it was more appropriate to go to the Air Registration Board or to Lloyd's Register. His argument in favour of caution supported the very intention of the Amendment of giving the Minister power to set up a separate Hovercraft Registration Board.
I remind the Minister that our intention is not that the setting up of such a Board should be mandatory, but that it should be permissible for the President of the Board of Trade to set it up when he considers that it would be useful. I would go even further, and say that, at the moment, with this very young industry it would be far better just to leave things as they are under the control of


the Board of Trade, but that for an industry which I know from personal experience, having watched it from its very conception in the Isle of Wight, has an enormous potential that none of us can at present properly envisage, there will be a need for a separate Registration Board. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet has explained, there will not be time in this Government's lifetime—which I hope will be very short—to introduce further legislation, and a new Government will be so involved in putting the present mess in order they will not have time to deal with minor matters like hovercraft.
4.45 p.m.
I have consulted operators and manufacturers, and find conflict of view. The manufacturers would prefer to see a separate board but, if it is not set up, would rather be with the Air Registration Board than with Lloyd's. On the other hand, the operators would also prefer to see a separate Board set up but, if it is not established, they would prefer to be with Lloyd's. I suppose the trouble is that in its construction a hovercraft is more like an aircraft and in its operation—definitely in the sea environment in which it at present operates—it is more like a ship. One would therefore expect a difference of opinion between the manufacturers and the operators.
There is even a difference of opinion among operators themselves. Hover-travel, the private enterprise company which was first in this field, has qualified aircraft pilots to drive the vehicles, but Seaspeed, which also operates in the Isle of Wight, and in a British Railways setup, has employed master mariners. With this conflict and doubt and indecision about whether this vehicle is more like a ship or more like an aircraft, let us accept the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which clearly states that it is neither.
In those circumstances, I am sure that the Minister would be wise to take powers to set up a separate Hovercraft Registration Board which, when set up, could draw on personnel from the Air Registration Board and from Lloyd's Register, from the manufacturers and from the operators. We could then concentrate all the best brains available on this new method of transport.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): I have been convinced this afternoon quite forcibly of the Tightness of the position of the Board of Trade. Having listened to the useful and interesting arguments advanced from both sides of the House, it seems to me that what we have had rehearsed is the very difficulty we found throughout the whole Committee stage—that we have here, to quote the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) "a wholly new animal."
Many hon. Members have made their point because of the very newness of the hovercraft, but it is because of the very newness of the hovercraft that we want a Bill that will make it possible for the industry to develop. In other words, we are very anxious not to do anything that will restrict the development of what will obviously be a highly important and very vital part of our economy in the future.
The Amendment would give us power to establish a Hovercraft Registration Board with responsibility for the registration of hovercraft and any such matters as the President of the Board of Trade might determine. I believe that I can claim to be a very interesting woman, because on this matter I have an open mind. We had a very full discussion in Committee and I was very taken by the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), when he said forcibly that we should beware of doing anything that would make it more difficult for the designer. That, to me, is the answer to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), when he seemed to me to be almost inferring that we should, at this juncture, try to bring in some form of control at the design stage.
Many hon. Members have made the point that we have the Air Registration Board which has its own very particular interests and we also have Lloyd's Register with not only its insurance interests but general marine interests. I pointed out to the hon. Member for Eastleigh, in the letter to which he referred that, for various reasons, we are not in disagreement with him when we say that we envisage a


time when it might be necessary to delegate certain functions to a separate Hovercraft Board. This can be done under Clause 1(3)(c).
The possibility of some association between the Air Registration Board and Lloyd's Register of Shipping on such a Board has been under discussion and Ministers' minds remain open on the subject. The hon. Member referred to the fact that meetings have taken place. The House will be interested to know that they are still taking place because, for obvious reasons, there are many sections of the industry which want to express their views on this new field of operation.
It is not considered necessary by Her Majesty's Government to take powers under the Bill to set up a Board as a statutory body since there would be no difficulty in setting it up as a company. The hon. Member for Eastleigh found this argument singularly unconvincing because, he said, had we been faced with the problem of setting up the Air Registration Board now we might have done it in a different way. I accept that this is a possibility, but we can see no advantage in setting up a statutory board when a company should be able to do the job just as well.
There are these additional reasons why we do not think we need to take powers to set up a statutory board. The aircraft industry has not required a statutory body for certification and there seems no good reason why the much smaller hovercraft industry should have a statutory body. Both the Air Registration Board and Lloyd's Register of Shipping are private non-statutory bodies. Secondly, it is proposed only to delegate certain functions, which would hardly warrant a statutory body. A statutory body would necessarily be independent from the Air Registration Board and Lloyd's Register and it would be expensive to set up the framework of an expert headquarters and outpost staff for such a comparatively small industry. It is doubtful whether the expense would be justified or borne by the industry.
I have listened with care to the remarks made by hon. Members opposite, but it has been said to me by people

in the industry that they are anxious that the Government should not restrict their developments in future. I believe that, in principle, we are agreed on the way we think the hovercraft industry will probably need a Hovercraft Board at some point in the future. Where we are not agreed is on the need to take powers to create a statutory board. We have the powers which we think are necessary to set up the sort of Board which we envisage might be necessary in future.
I hope that the hon. Member will accept that after very wide discussion in Committee it is not that we are lightly dismissing the arguments put forward, but that rather, given the newness of the industry and the future pattern of development, we think it not necessary to write these powers into the Bill and that it might defeat the very object which hon. Members opposite are seeking to achieve. I therefore hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. David Price: It is interesting that we have reached the point on which we have agreed on the probable pattern of the future and agreed also that a board something on these lines may be necessary. The curious thing is that we are disagreeing on what from this side of the House is a departure from the normal form. We are suggesting a statutory board while the Government, also out of normal order of things, are rejecting the idea of a statutory board and saying that this can be done under the Companies Act. It seems a curious reversal of the normal habits of the two sides of the House.
This is the only outstanding point. I am not persuaded that it is not right at this stage to write into the Bill power to make this a statutory body. If the hon. Lady is right and it emerges that it can be done more modestly under the Companies Act, she does not need to bring the Amendment into play. All this is permissive, but, for the reasons I have suggested, and many more which I could adduce, as time emerges I am sure the Department will feel that it would be preferable to make this a statutory body.
To make this clear, I think that it would probably be better if we just had a wee vote on it.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 190.

Division No. 275.]
AYES
[4.55 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Goodhew, Victor
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gower, Raymond
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bell, Ronald
Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gurden, Harold
Peel, John


Bessell, Peter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peyton, John


Bitten, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Blaker, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boardman, Tom (Loicester, S.W.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Body, Richard
Hill, J. E. B.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Braine, Bernard
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ridsdale, Julian


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hornby, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cary, Sir Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Tapsell, Peter


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Clegg, Walter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Cordle, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Tilney, John


Corfield, F. V.
Kimball, Marcus
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kirk, Peter
van straubenzee, W. R.


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dance, James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ward, Dame Irene


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lane, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Eden, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Elliott, R. W (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley
Woodnutt, Mark


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Angus
Younger, Hn. George


Fisher, Nigel
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald



Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. s. L. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fortescue, Tim
Monro, Hector
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Foster, Sir John
More, Jasper
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles





NOES


Abse, Leo
Concannon, J. D.
Ford, Ben


Albu, Austen
Conlan, Bernard
Forrester, John 


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fowler, Gerry


Alldritt, Walter
Dalyell, Tam
Freeson, Reginald


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Archer, Peter
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ginsburg, David


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gourlay, Harry


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Delargy, Hugh
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dempsey, James
Gregory, Arnold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dewar Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Barnes, Michael
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Barnett, Joel
Dickens, James
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Beaney, Alan
Dobson, Ray
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Binns, John
Doig, Peter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Blackburn, F.
Dunwoody, Mr. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hamling, William


Booth, Albert
Eadie, Alex
Hannan, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Harper, Joseph


Bradley, Tom
Ellis, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
English, Michael
Haseldine, Norman


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ennals, David
Hazell, Bert


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Ensor, David
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Faulds, Andrew
Hooley, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Fernyhough, E.
Horner, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Cant, R. B.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Chapman, Donald
Foley, Maurice
Hoy, James


Coe, Denis
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)




Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hynd, John
Moyle, Roland
Silverman, Julius


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Neal, Harold
Slater, Joseph


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Newens, Stan
Small, William


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
 Spriggs, Leslie


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
 Oakes, Gordon
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
 O'Malley, Brian
Taverne, Dick


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oram, Albert E.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Judd, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Thornton, Ernest


Kelley, Richard
Orme, Stanley
Tuck, Raphael


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Paget, R. T.
Urwin, T. W.


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Palmer, Arthur
Varley, Eric G.


Lawson, George
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley)


Leadbitter, Ted
Park, Trevor
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ledger, Ron
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wallace, George


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pavitt, Laurence
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Whitaker, Ben


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pentland, Norman
White, Mrs. Eirene


Lomas, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Whitlock, William


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Wilkins, W. A.


McCann, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McGuire, Michael
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mackintosh, John P.
Randall, Harry
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Maclennan, Robert
Rankin, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


McNamara, J. Kevin
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Robinson. Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
 woof, Robert


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E)



Marquand, David
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Neil McBride and


Maxwell, Robert
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Millan, Bruce
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

Mr. Woodnutt: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 3, at end insert:
(h) for encouraging the recreational use of hovercraft.
We have stressed, on Second Reading and in Committee, the importance of the recreational use of hovercraft and the fact that a growing band of amateurs are indulging in this pursuit. The Amendments which we have tabled have made it clear that we are very concerned to ensure that the Orders which the Government will produce do not restrict amateur users of hovercraft. We had in mind that the safety regulations should not be too stringent. Obviously, the regulations which apply to the S.R.N.4 which is to cross the Channel will be different from those applying to a little two-seater hovercraft which is used to give exhibitions at agricultural shows.
We were concerned lest the regulations about the qualifications of pilots should be too severe and that the restrictions and fees might be too high, thus discouraging amateurs from taking part in this sport. We are satisfied with the assurances that we have received that it is not the Government's intention to do anything to restrict this activity in the amateur field.
We now want to go further and give the Minister specific power to introduce an Order actively to encourage the recreational use of hovercraft. We have not anything specific in mind. We were thinking of the time before the war, when help was given by the Government to flying clubs. It may be necessary to make regulations about the use of land or to ease restrictions to make it easier for these people to take part in this pursuit.
I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, because I cannot stress too highly the threefold importance of this activity for amateurs. First, it is a very healthy pursuit and enjoyable sport. Secondly, a new light industry is being created. Many companies now build small hovercraft and do-it-yourself kits. People are buying them. It is developing as an export industry. We must encourage it as an amateur sport to encourage this new light industry. Thirdly, enthusiastic amateurs taking part in this sport, many of them building their own craft—they tinker around and think of new ideas—produce developments which are helpful to the professionals.
Not only must the Government not do anything in Orders in Council to restrict the amateur sport. The Government should take these powers to enable the


President of the Board of Trade at any time to make an Order actively to encourage the hovercraft sport as a recreational activity.

Mr. Rees-Davies: As my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) said, in this Amendment we are taking matters a little further than we did in Committee. We emphasised then the great need not to restrict these developments, and the hon. Lady said, as she did in an earlier speech today, that the Government regard it as important not to put undue or severe restrictions upon them. The present Amendment is, so to speak, the converse proposition.
In pre-war days and immediately after the war, little was done positively to encourage useful sport. I remember from before the war, when I was a member of the Cambridge University Air Squadron, that little or nothing was done—apart from the squadrons which were intended more to train the type of person who might ultimately join the Air Force—to assist the flying clubs themselves. The flying clubs have done badly. Gliding clubs are not doing too badly nowadays, but little was done by the Government in the past.
Now, however, after 25 years, the Government have changed a lot. We have a "Minister for Sport". True, he has no executive powers yet, but he has certain functions. There is a much better approach in education towards assisting swimming pools and other sporting facilities. We have the National Association of Youth Clubs and other such organisations. We ought to write into the Bill something which could be of benefit to a recreation which is not only great fun but very good for encouraging our youth. The development of hover clubs, or mini-hover clubs, is excellent. Many of their members make their own craft, often the small mini-hover made out of kits of parts prepared by manufacturers.
As the President of the Board of Trade is here, I remind him of the vast potential export trade which we can do if we actively encourage this new sport. There is now a Hover Club of Great Britain, of which I am proud to be one of the newest members. I hope to be able to have a mini-hover of my own one day. It would be exciting at certain times to

move along at Broadstairs in competition with a somewhat better known Member of the House while he was pursuing his sailing activities. Many hover club rallies already take place in various parts of the country at which both young people and grown-ups get together to see what can be done to turn this into a valuable new amateur sport.
There is the other side to the problem. If our Amendment were written into the Bill, it would mean that someone within the Ministry would say, "Good gracious. We had better get in touch with the Ministry of Education and see what we can do to encourage hovercraft". A positive duty would be imposed, but I believe that it would be a duty welcomed by those concerned in the Ministry rather in the way that the Treasury welcomes its duties in connection with museums. It is something a little out of the ordinary. There would also be the person responsible for seeing that there was direct liaison with manufacturers of this type of craft, ensuring that they got in touch with the Board of Trade in order to assist in making contacts overseas for the furtherance of exports.
As I say, the Amendment can be supported on two grounds. It would be right, I am sure, to accept it so that the recreational use of hovercraft may be encouraged and, second, in order that the development of small hovercraft may proceed without restriction, to the benefit of amateurs in this country.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. David Price: May I correct my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) on one point? This Amendment, like the other provisions in Clause 1, is permissive, not mandatory. At one point, he just got it wrong when he suggested that it would impose a positive duty. The effect would be to impose a duty only in the permissive sense.
As my hon. Friend said, there are two aspects to our proposal. One relates to the question of regulating mini-hovers. I agree entirely with all that has been said about our not wishing unduly to restrict these developments. We hope that the relationship developing between the Air Registration Board and the Hover Club of Great Britain will continue and grow and that people wishing


to indulge in this sport will form clubs which are themselves affiliated to the Hover Club of Great Britain, so that the sport itself will be largely self-regulated. One must look somewhere along the line at how far people should endanger themselves in playing around with these vehicles, but I do not believe that the danger is very great.
The second limb of our proposal is our wish to give the Government power, if they wish, to include hovering as a recreation to be given assistance in their general assistance to sport. I put this thought to the President of the Board of Trade. Hover clubs provide a happy combination of exercise out of doors, on the one hand, and applied technology, on the other. I am sure that he agrees that one of the problems in trying to encourage more young people to go into engineering is that of bringing some excitement and glamour into it. This came out clearly in Professor Dainton's massive study of the whole question. Here is one aspect of it. Were we, with little public expense, to put some glamour into an activity which is both recreational and one which gives people an interest in applied technology, that would be a most happy juxtaposition of two highly desirable national endeavours.
I do not for a moment suggest, particularly at this time of pressure on public expenditure, that we should at once say that £X thousand should be given. Quite the contrary. But, as this is an enabling Bill, it would be right to adopt our proposition. I am sure that the Government are with us on it. It is purely permissive so that, at some time in the future, a President of the Board of Trade, in conjunction with Ministers responsible for sport and education, may be glad to find that, at this Report stage, we had decided to write these powers into the Bill.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that, in general, I am all for encouraging sports, but I have been fascinated by the way in which hon. Members opposite, perhaps as a result of a slightly traumatic night, seem to be feeling very permissive today and anxious to give me all sorts of things. [Laughter.] I knew that I should be misunderstood.

Obviously, hon. Members opposite are not as tired as I thought they were.
The Amendment arises from the eloquent plea made in Committee by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt). I said then, and I think he accepts, that the Government are much in sympathy with the view which he advanced. We consider that the development of the mini-hover, as it has been christened, is very interesting and one which we do not wish to restrict in any way. I repeat the assurance which I then gave, that we do not think that there is any need to burden small hovercraft with excessive controls, and I think that that covers one of the points which he made.
It is, in general, our policy to encourage the owners of small hovercraft to join the Hover Club of Great Britain, which lays down certain requirements for such craft, with the assistance of the Air Registration Board. But we consider it inappropriate to make provision for encouraging the recreational use of hovercraft in this Bill, the main purpose of which is to make provision for the regulation of hovercraft.
The Government have given an assurance that, when regulations for hovercraft are made under the Bill, small recreational hovercraft will not be subject to excessive controls, and we shall give every encouragement and assistance we can to the Hover Club of Great Britain, especially in the way of advice on safety matters. But to include a reference to the encouragement of this particular section of the hovercraft industry would be out of place. It is the Government's policy to continue to encourage all sections of the hovercraft industry. I hope that the discussion which we have had today will draw the attention of many young people to the use of hovercraft as an exciting, lively and active means of recreation and that there will be a development of clubs along these lines. We do not, however, feel that this is an appropriate Amendment to make to the Bill at this time.

Mr. Woodnntt: I accept the hon. Lady's assurance. Though she has made references to our apparent permissiveness during the night and now, she shows no more signs than she did in Committee of


being permissive, and it is a little disappointing that all our efforts to improve the Bill have been thwarted. Nevertheless, we accept that the Government will do their best to meet the wishes we have expressed when they prepare the orders, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read. [Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. David Price: Before we say "goodbye" to the Bill I should like to put four questions to the hon. Lady.
First, how soon does she expect to be in a position to bring forward the first set of Orders under the Bill? Should I be right to assume that they will be directed towards some of the existing marine hovercraft, particularly the S.R.N.6 and S.R.N.4?
Second, could she give me an assurance on a matter which I have raised on a number of occasions, that is, the need for somebody—presumably it will now be the Air Registration Board though I am not clear on this—which will be available for discussions with the engineers of the N.R.D.C. working on the tracked hovercraft? This brings us back to the point that the best place to make provision for safety is at the design stage. The engineers want somebody with whom they can discuss these matters.
Third, should I be right in thinking that the Ministry of Transport will be the appropriate body for designers in the road vehicle category to consult when it comes to the application of the air cushion principle to road vehicles?
Fourth, may I ask her for an assurance that in any Order she makes she will ensure compatibility of British standards with standards and regulations likely to be imposed in the major countries of the world, above all those to which we look as a market for the export of our hovercraft?
I am sure that the hon. Lady can assure me, but she has not yet done so, that she understands the important dis-

tinctions between the establishment of safety standards at the design stage and their establishment in operation, and that this may mean that in making orders under the Bill she may have to have a slightly different approach at these two levels.
I have no doubt that the hon. Lady will have no difficulty in answering those questions. I hope that the Bill will lead to satisfactory Orders being made, the object of which is to meet the old problem of providing reasonable safety while not so debilitating forward development and being so over-cautious that progress is entirely frustrated.

5,23 p.m.

Mr. Woodnutt: Could the hon. Lady undertake that before draft Orders are placed before the House there will be full consultation between the Board of Trade, the operators, the manufacturers and the harbour boards? The Harbour Commissioners pointed out to me last weekend that with hovercraft going in and out of their harbours so often, it will be necessary for them to be consulted on any regulations affecting hovercraft and harbours before draft Orders are prepared.
As I have already said on Second Reading and in Committee, I hope that we can have an assurance that we shall take the lead in setting up an international body to discuss all the international implications of the use of hovercraft.
I hope that it will not be lost on the Government that with enormous hovercraft travelling across the Channel in less than 30 minutes, carrying 35 motor cars and 250 passengers, the Channel Tunnel is already obsolete, and we should think again about it.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Bessell: I was not fortunate enough to be selected to serve on the Standing Committee, and if I had been I should have had to decline because of the duties imposed on me by Standing Committee F considering the Transport Bill. But I have followed the passage of the Bill through the House with considerable interest, not only because I find the hovercraft industry particularly fascinating but because the development of this form of vehicle is, I believe, of immense consequence and importance,


and therefore any legislation must have far reaching consequences.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) was quite right when he said that none of us could even begin to envisage the possible development of the hovercraft as a means of transporting people and goods in the years ahead. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to allow this occasion to pass without my saying on behalf of my colleagues that we welcome the Bill and the permissive powers which the Government are taking, quite rightly, to assist in the general development and furtherance of this industry, and particularly this form of transportation.
I am curious to know how far the hydrofoil plane will be affected by the Bill. That was the reason for my intervention on Report. I wonder if it will become a part of the hovercraft industry, or the concept of travel by hovercraft, and therefore come within the provisions of the Bill. But these are matters that it is inappropriate to debate now. As they are not contained in the Bill I cannot refer to them in a Third Reading debate.
I read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings, and was impressed by the logic of the arguments put forward by both sides. The way in which they were advanced showed that many hon. Members on both sides have a keen appreciation of the importance of the hovercraft to transport in this country in the years ahead, and, more than that, are anxious, as we are on this bench, to do everything to assist in its furtherance and development.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: We welcome the Bill. We have given the Government wide powers under it, and regulations will later be laid. Will the hon. Lady, through her Department, see that information goes out to the parties interested in various aspects, so that they are kept fully in the picture through the Press and by circular letters on the matters which the Government have in mind.
Second, will the Government say publicly what sort of Committee is now considering these matters affecting the industry? How is it composed? I do not think there is any need for secrecy, and I do not think that is a secret. May we

know its functions, so that those who are interested, whether as manufacturers or operators, will know that they can write to the chairman or secretary, or approach members, on matters of current interest?
Third, I feel that this is a case where we might move in a fairly new direction which is becoming more common in matters where there is no party controversy. Would it be possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) and others of us who are interested to be given advance information on the general nature of the Government's ideas as they affect the Regulations before they are laid? Presumably the regulations will be subject to annulment but not amendment, and it is better to have an opportunity of seeing the broad general nature of draft Regulations before they are laid.
Finally, there is the question of manufacture and export. Will the hon. Lady ensure that those concerned know precisely who at the Board of Trade they can approach for assistance, particularly about exporting? Will this be a matter for the E.C.G.D.? The essence of my four questions is that there should be the widest possible information and consultation at all stages henceforth. This is particularly necessary where we are granting wide powers, about which the Bill itself gives little information. This subject calls for the maximum co-operation between all those associated with the industry. I wish the Bill success and the industry continuing success safe from undue restriction and with the active co-operation of the Government.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: The Bill and the discussions on it are valuable because they have brought before Parliament and public a fact that was not so generally appreciated—that there will have to be a series of Orders in Council dealing with different types of hovercraft. So far, the public have thought of the hovercraft as going by sea and landing on beaches and in harbours. Now, we appreciate that they have equal facility on land, deserts, marshes, ice floes and frozen lakes and on farms and in factories. The industry will branch out into many lines apart from the one so well known to all of us, so the Government are wise in leaving themselves free


to issue a series of Orders in Council as and when the need arises.
I hope that the Board of Trade will keep its mind flexible on questions of definition. I fear that the definition in the Bill may be a little too restricted as the hovercraft develops in its new effects and new uses. For example, we might find that the phrases, "air cushion vehicle" or "ground effect machine" should be included in the definition. The present definition is useful for the broad uses we now have in mind but it may not be useful if these craft are used in factories or in other specialised ways.
I do not think that there has yet been drawn up comprehensively a set of rules for the avoidance of collisions at sea involving hovercraft. They are not ships and therefore cannot use the rules of the sea as laid down for ships, in certain conditions. They will have to have special rules for avoidance of collision. This was brought to mind recently by a collision between a hovercraft and a ship.
Lastly, I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). Cannot hon. Members have a sight sometimes of draft Orders or Regulations before they are laid? It is unfair that trade associations and trade unions are able to consider draft Regulations before hon. Members. I have been an official of a trade association and I find it ludicrous that, when I was an humble official, I could advise the Government but now that I am a Member of Parliament I am not allowed to do so. Perhaps some procedure should be introduced to allow hon. Members sight of particularly Regulations so that they can given advice on these important matters. I hope that the Government will develop the industry, as I am sure they will, and will bring in various Orders in Council fit for the various forms of hovercraft as they develop.

5.34 p.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I must confess that I have found this a very absorbing Bill. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee felt that we were dealing with a very important subject, one capable of many interpretations in the very wide and interesting developments which will come. I thank hon. Member

for the useful and interesting discussions we have had.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) asked me four questions. I hope that he will not feel that I am pretending to be evasive if I say that, at present, there is such a great deal of drafting still to be done and such a great deal of consultations still to take place with all sections of the industry that it would be wrong for me to give any indication of the time scale of how soon we are likely to bring forward the first set of Orders. Many hon. Members have raised the valid point that we must consult all sections of the industry which can possibly have an interest and we are anxious to do so.

Mr. David Price: Does the hon. Lady envisage giving priority to the SRN4s which will be coming into service soon operating across the Channel? I am thinking particularly in terms of liability and so on.

Mrs. Dunwoody: We have had various practical problems dropped on our doorstep. Indeed, in Committee we had an interesting example of how we could be discussing safety regulations while events were almost overtaking us, as it were. While it is not our intention to say that we intend to give immediate priority to one section rather than another, obviously we shall be concerned very much more about the problems facing us in relation to those craft already coming into service. It is our intention to start consultations as soon as possible on these lines.
On the question of the rô1e of the Ministry of Transport, Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act says that hovercraft on the roads are to be treated as road vehicles and therefore we shall obviously keep the Ministry of Transport in touch with what is going on in the Board of Trade on this subject.
The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance that we would keep any Order we brought in in line with international practice in this matter. In Committee I said that we were keeping the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation informed of our legislation and have put forward to I.M.C.O. the view that the hovercraft should be treated in its own right and not necessarily as a ship. We shall obviously keep that organisation very much in the picture about what


is going on in this country. I take the the point about safety regulations and the difficulties which will arise. This is something actively under discussion and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not go into detail now.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) welcomed the Bill. He and I come from a part of the country desperately in need of new forms of transport, if not improvement in the old, and we both feel that this is the sort of development which can bring immediate advantages to the West Country. I am grateful to him for his remarks and I am sorry that he did not find himself able to serve on the Standing Committee. But I know that he will have found the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings informative.
The hon. Members for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) were worried to ensure that, before draft Orders are placed before the House, there should be full consultation. I can give that assurance because we are very anxious that everyone should be included. This means a very wide range of people being consulted. I take the point that sometimes hon. Members seem to be rather behind with the information they get but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that as far as humanly possible we have tried to keep hon. Members appraised of the sort of developments taking place in the Board of Trade.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet developed this point by saying that he hoped that circulars would be sent to the industry. As the Regulations will be drawn in close consultation with the industry through the Hovercraft Consultative Committee, we feel that this is one way in which information will be disseminated. But obviously we shall consider wider dissemination and explanation on the advice of the Committee.
Manufacturers, operators, Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the Air Registration Board, the unions and Government Departments are represented on the Hovercraft Consultative Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that that is a very wide representation. The Government are willing to consult on a wider basis with insurance interests about the special question of liability. We feel that

generally there is a wide range of information available to us.
I turn to the question of manufacture and export of hovercraft and who should be approached in the Board of Trade. Hon. Members will be aware that we have a Department which offers skilled advice to anyone wishing to export. The Department in the Board of Trade which has been concerning itself with the hovercraft industry will be able to work in close consultation with our Export Services Branch. I hope that anyone who has any hope of exporting hovercraft will not hesitate to approach us for any assistance which he thinks we can give.
The Bill has gone through its stages with a great deal of agreement. The discussion on it, which has ranged very widely, will be very useful to the industry. We envisage for the industry a very bright and highly developed future. We do not know where the hovercraft industry is going, but we are convinced that it has a fascinating future. We are delighted that the Bill has been so well received by the House. I feel sure that hon. Members will not only have learnt a great deal from the discussions which have taken place but will be able to assist the industry in its future development.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

BRITISH STANDARD TIME BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): We may take with the new Clause Amendment No. 1, in Clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 12 to 41, and the new Schedule—Provisions Contingent on Expiration of Sections 1 to 3.

Mr. Ronald Bell: May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consider the possibility of accepting manuscript Amendments to the new Clause because of the unusual circumstances which have arisen by the Government's tabling the new Clause rather late simply to improve the drafting of the Bill? The tabling of the new


Clause has caused all the Opposition Amendments to fall. The manuscript Amendment which I would seek to move, of which I have given you notice, would simply link the Amendment which I had on the Notice Paper to the wording of the new Clause. I would seek to amend the new Clause instead of the Clause in the Bill. There is therefore no change of substance.
This is an effort merely to cope with the situation caused by the Government's desire to improve the Bill's drafting. We have had almost no opportunity to react to the situation. I recognise that manuscript Amendments always present problems to the Chair, but I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will feel that this is an occasion when they may be accepted.

Mr. Antony Buck: I support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has said. It is a little unusual to find in connection with a Government Bill of very short compass a proposal to delete 30 lines of it and to insert a smaller number of lines. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be able to accede to my hon. and learned Friend's request.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should like to help hon. Members. However, I am afraid that I could not select the Amendment. For the guidance of the hon. Members concerned, may I say that, in my view, there is nothing in the Amendment which could not be discussed in the debate on the new Clause.

New Clause

COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION

(1) This Act shall come into force on 27th October, 1968.

(2) Sections 1 to 3 of this Act shall expire at two o'clock, Greenwich mean time, in the morning of 31st October, 1971 unless made permanent under subsection (3) below; and the provisions of Schedule (Provisions contingent on Expiration of Sections 1 to 3) to this Act shall have effect in the event of the expiration of those sections.

(3) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the said sections 1 to 3 shall have permanent effect; and any such Order may repeal subsection (2) above and the said Schedule (Provisions contingent on Expiration of Sections 1 to 3).

(4) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order

under subsection (3) above unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament passed before the end of the year 1970.—[Mr. Ennals.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
First, I assure the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) that there was nothing Machiavellian in the Government's tabling of the new Clause. It was not designed to destroy the Amendments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, although, if I am to be honest, I cannot deny that I am glad that it did so. No doubt the hon. and learned Member will raise the points which he wished to raise in the debate on the new Clause or on Third Reading.
The Government's intention was aired in Committee. I sought the advice of the Committee about whether it felt that it would be helpful to take the measure which we propose, and it was the general view that we should do so.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Gentleman says that he sought the advice of the Committee. Are we to understand from that that at that moment, although we did not know it, the Government Whip was off and the Committee was being consulted? If the hon. Gentleman's colleagues had known that, I think that the result would have been entirely different.

Mr. Ennals: It was made clear that I was consulting my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, as we normally do, and taking due account of all the views.
Perhaps it would be convenient if, before I turn to the features of the new Clause and the other proposals associated with it, I explained briefly the underlying object. These proposals are concerned with the possibility of the Summer Time Acts reviving in October, 1971, assuming that it is decided that British Standard Time should not be continued. If it is continued, they will be irrelevant, but if it is not continued by decision it seems sensible that the opportunity of this Bill should be taken to effect a modification of the Summer Time Acts on lines which,


as all our experience suggests, are likely to be wholeheartedly approved by the House and certainly by the public.
The present position is this. The Summer Time Act, 1922, as amended by the 1925 Act, provides for the period of summer time to run from the day following the third Saturday in April until the day following the first Saturday in October—a period of five and a half months. The Summer Time Act, 1947, allows that period to be varied in any year by Order in Council. Since that Act was passed the power to vary the period has been used on many occasions by successive Governments, and it was used to extend the period by four weeks in the spring and three weeks in the autumn for each of the three years beginning in 1965 and ending in 1967. During those years, therefore, Summer Time lasted from the end of March to the end of October—seven months.
When the Government embarked on their inquiries preparatory to the Bill, the one fact which stood out clearly was that, whether people wished the equivalent of summer time to apply throughout the year or not—and, as we know, there were differing views on that—almost everyone approved of the longer period of summer time introduced by the Orders. We have had three years' experience on which to draw. There was something approaching complete unanimity of opinion without distinction of place or occupation. This was as much welcomed in Scotland as in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Brewis: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the letter which we have received from the National Farmers' Union in England saying that it has become clear from the experiment about which he is speaking that very many people are against it?

Mr. Ennals: I have not seen that particular letter. We consulted organisations. We did not give them a "take it or leave it" ultimatum. We gave four alternatives. One was that we should continue with an extended period of Summer Time. The overwhelming view of the organisations, economic and social, representing large sections of the community was that whatever else was done about making Summer Time permanent, we should have a longer period of Summer Time.

Mr. James Dempsey: Would my hon. Friend not agree that, apart from the Scottish T.U.C. and the employers' organisations, many Scottish organisations are opposed to the extension, especially some local authorities and their associations?

Mr. Ennals: With respect to my hon. Friend, the point that he is making refers not to whether there should be an extended period of Summer Time, but whether Summer Time should be applied throughout the year, as this Bill proposes, for an experimental period. No doubt my hon. Friend will be able to express his point of view on that. These two Amendments provide that, should the Summer Time Acts revive, this longer period should be built into them. That is to say, failing any varying Order, the period will be automatically seven months instead of five and a half. There will still be power to make Orders, lengthening or shortening the period, but the state of public opinion as revealed by our inquiries seems to show that there will be little occasion to change this.
It would have many advantages. It would introduce an element of stability which has been lacking in recent years under the present law which involves waste of Parliamentary time in having to come before both Houses, year after year with Orders requiring affirmative Resolutions, which no one is likely to oppose. It is a piece of rationalisation of the machinery of the law which the Government believe to be non-controversial. The same view was taken when I raised this in Committee.
The Amendments dispense with the need for Clause 4(6) which provides for an Order in Council varying the period of Summer Time for 1972 being made in anticipation of the revival of the Summer Time Acts, should that course be decided upon. This was always an awkward provision, though necessary in previous circumstances. It will no longer be necessary, since if the Acts do revive, it will be with the customary extension of seven weeks built into them. For the rest, the changes made by the Amendments are of form rather than substance.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I am still a little mystified about the purposes of the Government Amendments. Would the result be that the


extended period would henceforth apply automatically, without any further regular Parliamentary sanction?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman has it right. If it is decided, at the end of the experimental period, not to continue with permanent Summer Time, with British Standard Time, then without any further decision by the House, we would revert to this longer period, seven months of Summer Time. The Government could still make Orders requiring the approval of the House if it transpired that the general view was that it should be eight months, or six months, or some other period. We would not be irreparably tied to seven months, but we would be tied to that figure, short of an Order requiring the affirmative Resolution procedure.
To return to the Amendments, it is convenient to make the modification in a Schedule rather than in the body of the Bill, and appropriate, following that, to transfer to the Schedule some of the material now contained in Clause 4. These are matters of tidy drafting only. I should like to think, and am encouraged by what was said in Committee to believe, that in dealing with these Amendments, the House may at least start on a note of harmony, although it is perhaps unlikely to last through our later proceedings, particularly since I notice the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) ready to leap to his feet.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I can help the Minister by telling him that the calm and harmonious atmosphere he hopes for will suffer a slight rift at this point. I do not take it very well that the Government should have tabled this new Clause rather late in the day, without any notice to us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is intervening or making a separate speech?

Mr. Bell: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had finished.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case I am bound to propose the Question, "That the new Clause be read a Second time".

Mr. Bell: I am glad that I was right in my diagnosis that the hon. Gentleman had sat down permanently. This matter was discussed in Committee, and we realised that the Government would be putting down some provision to embody the Amendment to the Summer Time Acts, if they should revive. The way it has been done, the new Clause and Schedule, striking out lines 12 to 41 of the existing Bill has ditched all Amendments to the Bill, other than those put down by the Government. Bearing in mind that this was done at short notice, and that we have had a Home Office Bill occupying us all day, until 5 o'clock this morning, I think, with great respect, that the hon. Gentleman might have let us know about this.
I do not want to take this too far. I accept that he was speaking off the cuff and lightheartedly, but it was not right to say that he was glad to realise that our Amendments would be ditched. I know that these things are said lightly, and perhaps not fully meant, but it is not quite good enough to put down a paving Amendment to leave out lines 12 to 41, realising and rejoicing that all Opposition Amendments would fall, and to do this in the circumstances I have described.
I have used the wrong phrase when I said "Opposition Amendments". I should have said Amendments in opposition to the Bill, because on this side of the House we have a free vote. The hon. Gentleman will not need to be told that the opposition to the Bill is not confined to one side of the House. It is very much to the contrary. I suspect that a good many hon. Members in other parts of the House will regret, as much as I do, that there is to be no opportunity of dividing on the issue of whether the experiment should be for three years or one.

Mr. Ennals: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that from this side of the House it is a little difficult to determine whether the Opposition has a free vote, or whether the Whips are on, but we will see what happens?

Mr. Bell: The merits of that intervention can be left to the judgment of the House. The Government should stand in a penitential white sheet for coming before the House with a Government Whip on any Bill like this. If ever there


were a matter which had nothing to do with conventional lines of difference between the political parties it is a question of the regulation of the clock—whether it be British Standard Time, Central European or Greenwich Mean Time. I do not know what this has to do with election manifestos, policies or political attitudes of the recognised political groups in the country.
As to the effect of the Amendment, I can only repeat what I said in Committee, that I thought it would be an advantage to have it. The proposal is not to go back to the sort of period of Summer Time that we had this year, starting in February, which I think no one liked, but to go back to the period we had before that, starting in March instead of April, which is what the Act lays down in default of intervention by Parliament. I prefer the period in the existing Act, but one has to recognise that every year for a long time Governments have been introducing draft Orders to change the period to March. If we are to have a draft Order every year, the sensible thing is to amend the Act so that we have a draft Order only for the exception rather than for the rule.
I support the proposed Amendment. Though you have advised me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that anything I want to say about a one-year experiment as against a three-year experiment will be in order on the proposed new Clause, I know equally that there will be no opportunity for us to divide on that choice. Therefore, we shall have to express our views on that on Third Reading and in the Lobby on the Motion for Third Reading.
6.0 p.m.
I regret the Government's insistence on a three-year period. I think that it is far too long. If they had had the sense to give way to the pressure from their own side and from this side and accept a one-year experiment, I think that many, though with great reluctance, would have accepted the Bill as an experiment. But three years is too long. It is unnecessary. The reasons given by the Undersecretary justifying that period convinced no one who heard him. The hon. Gentleman said that we must have two full winters to know what our attitude was and that we had to have a third winter

while the Government assessed our attitude and communicated their assessment to those who printed diaries. With respect to those who print diaries, I do not think that their importance in the community is so vast that we should have to endure a bad system for one extra year simply to suit their convenience, more especially since they can always print, as they often have in the past, a cautionary note about the various possibilities.
The main point which we made in Committee, which I repeat now, is that if the British public do not like this system—and they will not—their dislike will be instantly communicated to the Government through their Members of Parliament. It is unnecessary—indeed, it is not very useful—for the Government to canvass organisational opinions about this matter and feed them into a computer and arrive at the wrong result. They will hear quickly enough. The public did not know before what was proposed. That is why we got some rather odd reactions from organisations. When it is put into the shape of a Bill and is introduced into Parliament and there are public debates about it, the matter is mentioned on the wireless and in newspapers and one then gets reactions. When it is brought into force we will indeed get reactions. Hon. Members of Parliament will know, before the first winter is over, what their constituents think about British Standard Time and the Minister will be told immediately. Therefore, a one-year experiment is ample. But at the outside two years would surely be ample. Why must we have three years—two years for trying and one year for mechanics? This is hardly the white heat of the technological revolution.
I think that right hon. and hon. Members would have liked to divide on this issue. They cannot, so they will have to express their disapproval of the Bill as the Government have doggedly decided it will be. I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that, taken in isolation and on the merits, we could not sensibly divide against the new Clause and the Amendment.

Mr. Brewis: I, too, would like to speak briefly on the Amendment. Before doing so, may I say how pleased I am to


see present a Minister from the Scottish Office. There is no doubt that our discussions in Committee were made more difficult by the absence from the Government Bench of anyone who could assess the weight of opinion in Scotland. This occurred several times in connection with Scottish organisations like the E.I.S. and the Association of District Councils.
In Committee the Under-Secretary said that the National Farmers' Union in England and Wales was in favour of this experiment. That was so. It was in favour of an experiment, but not a three-year experiment. If it was in favour of anything, it was a one-year experiment, for which my hon. Friends and I argued in Committee.
On 1st July this year the National Farmers' Union in England sent a letter to Members of Parliament interested in the Bill. We already know that the National Farmers' Union in Scotland is strongly opposed to this Measure. The letter stales:
It is becoming far from certain, however, that the proposal to have summertime throughout the year does command such widespread support as the Government originally believed. Certainly the brief experiment of extending summertime at both ends of the calendar during the last season has resulted in a hardening of farmers' attitude and a shoal of resolutions to N.F.U. headquarters from its county branches are calling upon the union to press either for the withdrawal of the Bill or for the promised experimental period to be reduced from three to one year.
The hon. Gentleman will see that the N.F.U. did not support his arguments.
The letter goes on:
We propose conducting a canvass of our members' opinions early next year, and we fail to see what special merit there can be in continuing for three years an experiment the virtues or shortcomings of which can be amply judged after one season.
This is the commonsense view of this experimental time. We will be able to judge this quite well by about February next year. Many of us know that extending Summer Time to February this year led to great difficulty. I know, for example, of one firm of builders in the country which finds it has to start half an hour later and cannot work half an hour longer at the other end of the day, so there is a loss of production or

an increase in overtime, neither of which is desired at the moment.
If we have a mild winter people will know next spring what British Summer Time in a severe winter would be like. If we have a severe winter, we shall know perfectly well that we do not want this experiment. I am, therefore, strongly against this proposal for a three-year experiment, particularly after the experience of war time, which many still remember, when the extension of Summer Time into winter was an extremely unpleasant experience. I am sorry that we shall not have a chance to vote against the Amendment, but it is right that opinions should be clearly expressed.

Mr. James Davidson: I hope to be guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I am out of order in addressing myself to a particular point on this new Clause, the first line of which reads:
This Act shall come into force on 27th October, 1968.
The entitlement of the Bill reads:
An Act to establish the time for general purposes at one hour in advance of Greenwich mean time throughout the year.
This is the first opportunity that I have had, on behalf of those whom I represent, to express my total opposition to the whole concept of the Bill, whether it is to be for an experimental period of one year, two years, three years, or at all.
I hesitate to give my reasons for this opposition because they have been given at various stages of the Bill, and previously. I do not intend to bore the House by repeating them—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I understood that if an hon. Member wished to express his total opposition to the Bill he did that on Third Reading. I have raised this matter for the purpose of clarification. I am patiently waiting for the Third Reading so that I can express my total opposition of the Bill, but I should like to know what the position is.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening with care to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson). He asked for my advice, and I was proposing to give


it. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the new Clause which is concerned with particular dates, and I think that he ought to reserve his total opposition for the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Davidson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was seeking your guidance. That is why I read a line of the new Clause and the title of the Bill. If the general nature of what I have to say is out of order, I shall happily sit down and wait for the Third Reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot give guidance in advance. I think that the hon. Member must proceed and allow me to determine as he goes along whether he is in order.

Mr. Davidson: I shall continue for the moment but be prepared to be stopped if I get out of order.
Two matters which have been raised frequently in discussions on the Bill are the general inconvenience to school children, and the inconvenience to farmers, particularly in northern and western areas. Here I must plead an interest, because I am both a farmer in an upland northern region, and I have two young children who have to leave home at 8.15 in the morning to catch the school bus. They sometimes have to stand at the end of a farm road in atrocious weather in January and February, and I feel very strongly about this.
The argument adduced in favour of the Bill is that it will bring us into line with Europe. I think that that is a weak argument, because one has only to look at the time zones of the world to realise that even if we get into line with Europe and Scandinavia, Europe will have two time zones. Australia has three, New Zealand has another, the Soviet Union has no fewer than 11, Canada has seven—

Mr. Ennals: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, shortly before you resumed the Chair the hon. Member for Aberdeen-shire, West (Mr. James Davidson) was advised by Mr. Deputy Speaker on whether it would be best to make his general objections to the Bill on Third Reading, or in relation to the new Clause. The hon. Gentleman is developing an attack against the Bill, which he is en-

titled to do, but I submit that he might be happier doing it on Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it will be convenient if we follow the practice of my predecessor in the Chair and talk about the new Clause and Schedule when we are debating the new Clause and Schedule, and about the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Davidson: I sense the general feeling of the House. I wanted to obtain guidance about what I should base my speech on, but in view of the general feeling which has been expressed I shall sit down and hope to get an opportunity to take part in the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I wish briefly to support what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) about the way in which we have to discuss the Government's proposals. I do not think anyone will dispute for a moment that the alterations as such make sense, but it seems to me very unfortunate that the tabling of them has made it impossible for us to obtain the Government's view on the Amendment put down by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South, and that put down by my hon. Friend the member for North Augus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and myself, which are designed in different ways to limit the duration of the experiment to two years.
I do not want a two-year experiment. I think we made it clear in Committee that if we are to have an experiment it should be limited to one year. We divided the Committee on that issue. One has, nevertheless, to face the fact that the Government, with the aid of their Whips and scorpions, will secure a majority to push the Bill through, in fundamental opposition to the views and interests of nearly everybody in Scotland. What we therefore have to consider is whether, given that situation, it is desirable to have a two-year experiment rather than a three-year one.
6.15 p.m.
In Committee the Minister failed to produce any argument in support of the three-year experiment. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South said, all the Minister


could say was that the Government needed the extra year after the two years in which people could experience the operation of the Bill to complete their inquiries into people's views and opinions. To my mind it is obvious that once people are alerted to what is proposed they are quick to express their opinions about it, and if necessary their opposition to it. I fail to see why a third year is necessary to enable the Government to make a detailed survey into the results of the two-year experiment.
I dislike the fact that because of the way in which the Amendment is drawn we are unable to get from the Government a reasoned answer to our case for a two-year experiment rather than a three-year one. I do not know whether the Minister will deal with that when he replies. I think that he should, because if we are to have a trial period he must produce a better case than he has done for extending the experiment to a third year. In view of the experience of the hon. Member for Aberdeen-shire, West (Mr. James Davidson), it is clear that we should have an opportunity to express our opinion of the Bill as it will emerge from this Report Stage, but I hope that when the Minister sums up this short debate he will deal with the point I have raised.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I asked your predecessor whether manuscript Amendments, which I think you have before you, could be accepted so that the House could have an opportunity of dividing on the question of the length of the experiment. They are designed merely to link amendments to the new Clause. I think that Mr. Deputy Speaker is always in a difficulty with manuscript Amendments. I do not know whether you would feel disposed to allow them to be movd formally so that we can divide on them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member will be aware that Mr. Deputy Speaker will have conveyed his request to me. I am not prepared to take manuscript Amendments. If the hon. and learned Member wishes to make his point, he can do so by voting against the new Clause.

Mr. John Tilney: My hon. and learned Friend the

Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said that the opposition was not confined to one side of the House. Nor is the support for the Bill. I regret that when the Minister spoke he implied that he did not know what was meant by a free vote on this side of the House. Having, since the late 1950s, urged my Government, and then Labour Governments, to have a standard British time, and having asked a Question to which the then Home Secretary replied that the Government had at last made up their minds to have a standard time and not change the time in England twice every year, I welcome the Clause and the fact that there is to be a three-year experiment.
I sympathise with my hon. Friends who represent Scottish and farming constituencies, but we are an industrial and commercial nation, and I think that the will of the majority should prevail. We as a nation welcome the change. Of course people will not like the change at once. Of course they will object to darkness at 9 o'clock on New Year's Day in Glasgow, but they will also realise in due course that it is much lighter in the afternoon than it used to be. We cannot change the geography of our country, nor do we like—since we are conservative people in more ways than one—chopping and changing every year—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is drifting into a discussion of the Bill itself. This debate is about the commencement and duration of British Standard Time.

Mr. Tilney: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister said that if the experiment failed, British Summer Time would apply to only seven months in the year, and I was pointing out that I regretted the fact that it would not apply to nine months of the year, because my experience of Double Summer Time and of Summer Time which went throughout the year during the war makes me think that for the good of our general trade the Bill ought to be given a Third Reading, and in my opinion the new Clause ought also to be agreed to.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: I apologise to hon. Members for my absence at the beginning of the debate. I support the new Clause. During the Second Reading debate I felt some misgivings,


but I am much happier now, since my hon. Friend has brought forward the suggestion that we should have a three-year experimental period. No argument that it should be less than three years can be viable; the experiment must run for a sufficient time to enable people to adjust themselves to the situation, and I would have thought without any question that a period of three years was the absolute minimum. With this new Clause in the Bill I feel much happier about supporting it.

Mr. Buck: Difficulties have arisen because of the way in which the new Clause has been brought forward. The Bill was brought in as being a permanent Measure. When it was debated in January there was no question of an experiment or of a further Amendment, such as is provided by the new Clause and the Amendment to the Schedule, and coming at this late stage it raises difficulties, some of which have been referred to by my hon. Friends. It is a pity that we are not now in a position to debate the merits of a shorter or longer period of experiment.
I welcome the extension of Summer Time if the Bill is not made permanent. A further difficulty about bringing in such a fundamental Amendment at this late stage is that we have no adequate opportunity to study its drafting, and if the drafting is found wanting—and Parliamentary draftsmen can be at fault on occasion—the Government will not be in a position to do anything about it. To say the least, the Amendment to the Schedule is curiously worded from a legal point of view.
I refer the Under-Secretary to paragraph 3 of the new Schedule, which reads:
Section 1(2) of the Summer Time Act, 1925 (which altered the period of summer time) shall not revive by virtue of paragraph 2 above in any event".
We try to do our homework, and we therefore consult Halsbury to discover what is provided by Section 1(2) of the Summer Time Act, 1925, and we find that it merely effects an Amendment to the Summer Time Act of 1922. Halsbury does not reproduce this; it merely says that it amends the Summer Time Act, 1922.
Paragraph 3(b) says:
for the words from 'following' (where that word last occurs) onwards there shall be substituted the words 'following the fourth Saturday in October.'
This is a reference to the Summer Time Act, 1922. We therefore look at that Act and we find that in its original form it did something totally different, and that it is only to the extent of the Summer Time Act, 1922, as amended by the Summer Time Act, 1925, that the words in paragraph (b) apply. At least there is a strong case for adding the words
The Summer Time Act, 1922, as amended by the Summer Time, Act, 1925 ".
The whole thing is a piece of very odd drafting. I realise that this is a Committee point, which ought not to be deployed on Report, but we have not had an opportunity of dealing with it before.
I want to make one more very boring lawyer's point. There is another alteration made by the new Clause and the Amendment to the Schedule. The Bill as it came out of Committee did not allow the Government to make it permanent, at least until the end of 1970. I welcomed that fact. It meant that we were to have an experimental period. Under the new formula devised by the Clause, together with the Amendment to the Schedule, however, if the Government did not wish to heed what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House today they would be able to make British Standard Time permanent at once. In the next few weeks they could bring an order and make it permanent whereas under the original drafting they could not, because the provisions of Clause 4(6)—which is now to be deleted—did not allow them to do so. This point might not be of tremendous significance, but there has ben a definite alteration in the way in which the Bill is cast, and the Government are now giving themselves power to make British standard time permanent at once.
If there is any substance in the first lawyer's point and any significance in the second the Government will find it difficult to do anything about it, because we are now at the last stage of the last hurdle in our proceedings on the Bill. It is a pity that there was not an earlier debate. The decision to frame the Bill


as it is now to be framed creates difficulties for us in terms of making Amendments, and makes it difficult to subject the drafting to a proper and detailed scrutiny.

Mr. Ennals: First, I assure the hon. Member and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) that it was not the Government's intention in framing the Amendments to affect the other Amendments that have been tabled, and when I said how relieved I was it was a light-hearted comment. We had no wish to inconvenience hon. Members. The matter now before us was discussed in Committee and it was felt that it would be helpful to table an Amendment now in order to clarify what the situation would be at the end of the experimental period, if the conclusion was that the experiment was not a success. It was felt that we should draw upon the experience of the last three years in connection with the expanded period of Summer Time in order to bring in some degree of clarity about what was to be done.
6.30 p.m.
I was asked why there should be an experiment. The Bill when originally introduced was intended to be a permanent Measure. On Second Reading, hon. Gentleman on both sides expressed doubts about what would be the outcome and the reaction to the Bill, and we recognise that, although we had a great body of opinion about the consequence if Summer Time were extended, we knew that we should not be certain of the effect until we had tried it out. Therefore, rather than introduce a Bill which a future Government might conceivably wish to alter, we thought that it would be responding to the feeling in the House and to representations from such organisations as the National Farmers' Union that we should conduct an experiment.
We have been asked, why three years? If there is to be an experiment and we are to ascertain the consequences, it would not be sensible to try to reach a conclusion after one winter. I sought to explain in Committee, where this issue was substantially debated, that winters vary substantially in this country and in different parts of the country. There might be one reaction after a relatively

mild winter and another after a relatively hard one. If we genuinely wish to know the economic and social advantages, we need to see them over more than one winter.
Having seen this, it is not simply a matter of taking a snap personal decision or of having a public opinion poll. All sorts of people might say that this was a great advantage, and others, in different parts of the country and in different circumstances, might say, "I do not like this at all," but among the factors to be considered are not just the straight personal considerations. There are also such factors as what has been the effect on road safety: have there been more or less serious and fatal accidents? What has been the effect on our trade? How great has the advantage been of having a common time with our trading partners in Europe, the E.E.C., and E.F.T.A.? This is not just a matter of a quiz, but of assessing and having the statistics, which can be drawn only on the basis of a number of months.
Therefore, it is intended that we should pass through two winters and then conduct a survey through the various organisations likely to have an opinion so that, before the end of 1970, we can have taken a responsible decision. There is no point in taking a snap decision.

Mr. James Davidson: The substance of the hon. Gentleman's argument depends on our having two successive winters of varying severity, and the chances against this are pretty high, since winters tend to go in cycles. The hon. Gentleman might be lucky and he might not, but it seems to be a very unconvincing argument in favour of the experiment lasting more than one year. I am certain that he would get all the information he requires, if an experiment is necessary at all, from one year.

Mr. Ennals: That might be a convincing argument for letting the experiment run over three or four winters, to get a variation but it is not a point of view which has been put forward, although one of my hon. Friends thought in Committee that there would be a fairer judgment over five years. There is some substance in that, but it is a proposal which would certainly not have met with the strong support of the House, which we were natuurally anxious to secure.
There is another factor. If one has only one year or even two years with one winter, a substantial proportion of the population will say, "We do not need to try to make any adjustment." We have recognised that certain categories of people in certain parts of the country—for example, some sections of the building industry and some farmers, not to mention some school hours—will need to make some adjustment during the winter hours. They may say, "It is only this winter: we need not make any change." Therefore, it would not be a genuine experiment.

Mr. Michael Noble: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument; he may have gathered that I do not like the experiment any more than I like the whole project. What I find difficult to believe is that, even in a three-year experiment—or, if he likes, even a ten-year experiment—any statistics which can be extracted from any source will mean anything about the increase in our trade with European countries with the same time as ours. I do not believe that any factor, rise or fall in trade, will be significantly affected by this time. How will we assess this statistically?

Mr. Ennals: Some people involved in business feel strongly that there will be advantages, marginal only as they will be, and that it will be possible for them to make an assessment of those advantages and how it has worked out. In some fields, of course, there will be statistics. It has been suggested that, in some parts of the country, there could be an increase in electricity or power consumption and that in other parts there may be a decrease. But if it were an increase, we could estimate that increase, if any, only after a reasonable period. There would be statistics in this connection.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) mentioned the reference in the new Schedule, paragraph (3), to the 1925 Act. It is not necessary to revive Section 1(2) of that Act, since it would be over-ridden by the remainder of paragraph (3). He will find that the wording which has been used is satisfactory.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Clause 4

SHORT TITLE, REPEALS, DURATION AND PROVISION FOR REVIVAL

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 12 to 41.—[Mr. Ennals.]

New Schedule

PROVISIONS CONTINGENT ON EXPIRATION OF SECTIONS 1 TO 3

1. Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act, 1889 (effect of repeals) shall apply, in the event of the expiration of sections 1 to 3 of this Act, as if those sections had been repealed by another Act.

2. In the event of the expiration of the said sections 1 to 3, the enactments repealed by this Act shall, subject to paragraph 3 below, thereupon revive; but if other provision is made by a law of the States of Jersey or of Guernsey or by an Act of Tynwald, the Summer Time Acts, 1922 to 1947 as revived by this paragraph shall not apply to the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Isle of Man, as the case may be.

3. Section 1(2) of the Summer Time Act, 1925 (which altered the period of summer time) shall not revive by virtue of paragraph 2 above in any event; and if the other provisions of the Summer Tim Acts, 1922 to 1947 so revive, they shall have effect subject to the modification that in section 3(1) of the Summer Time Act, 1922 (which defines the period of summer time)—

(a) for the word 'April', in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word 'March'; and
(b) for the words from 'following' (where that word last occurs) onwards there shall be substituted the words "following the fourth Saturday in October".—[Mr. Ennals.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Ennals: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is the outcome of substantial consultations with representative organisations covering almost every aspect of life, economic, social and otherwise, in England, Wales and Scotland. It is based on the corporate wisdom of those involved in industry, commerce, education and social welfare. No independent observer, with the weight of evidence from responsible and expert bodies, could have reached any other conclusion than that we should at least experiment with what some have called "permanent summer time".
The main advantages economically are well set out in a statement issued by the London Chamber of Commerce, which I quoted in Committee, but which is, I think, of interest to the House generally—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: We have heard the views of the London Chamber of Commerce before, in Committee, and they did not impress us very much. In view of the weight of evidence, can my hon. Friend produce any more evidence which has the overwhelming weight of opinion in Scotland behind it? Would it not be desirable that the Undersecretary of State for Scotland, who is present, should take part in the debate, if possible?

Mr. Ennals: It is possible that my hon. Friend will intervene in the debate, if he feels it necessary, though we heard in Committee and may well hear today expressions of Scottish opinion, and I shall give some consideration to this in my speech.
My hon. Friend said that the House has heard the views of the London Chamber of Commerce, but the House has not: this was the privilege of hon. Members who were on the Committee. The Chamber of Commerce believes that
… the advantages of using British Summer Time throughout the year are both domestic and international. By using more daylight for working hours, economies can be made in both fuel and lighting and with reductions being made in the working week time saved at the end of the day will give more daylight for leisure.
For airline operators providing services in the United Kingdom, it would vastly improve the utilisation of aircraft through better communications between Europe and domestic services. It would also make for uniformity in scheduling throughout the year and make a considerable saving in administrative expenses incurred in printing double timetables and other sales documents.
However, the greatest advantage would come in international trade, particularly in drawing closer to Western Europe. All the countries in E.F.T.A. and the Common Market use mid-European time and with business hours in Europe tending to be earlier than those in Britain, putting clocks back one hour only puts British industry at a disadvantage. Other benefits would be better communications, particularly in transport and in dealings in commodies. After consultation with all the London Commodity Markets, the London Chamber believes that the use of British Summer Time will bring considerable benefits to London as a trading centre.

Of course, this Bill is not just about London, although London is a vital trading centre. It is not irrelevant that there is support nationally in the United Kingdom—in England, Wales and Scotland—from the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. The Scottish section of the C.B.I., as well as the Scottish T.U.C., has supported this Measure, for some of the economic reasons which I have given.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I am sure that the hon. Member wants to present the case fairly. Instead of quoting only from the few friends of the Bill, will he also give the evidence presented to the Government by the 91 official organisations in Scotland which opposed the Bill completely?

Mr. Ennals: I, or my hon. Friend, will refer to representations from Scotland. Consideration was given in Standing Committee both to those organisations in Scotland which support the Bill and to those organisations in Scotland which oppose it. I will indicate in a minute, as I indicated on Second Reading, that I recognise that there are certain sections of society and certain parts of the country which have shown a greater opposition to the measures proposed in the Bill, for reasons which can be well understood. In deciding whether to bring the Measure forward, the Government had to weigh up both the advantages and the disadvantages.
It would be absurd if we did not recognise the disadvantages, which certainly apply to some rural areas—and there is opposition to the Bill from rural areas. It would be folly also not to recognise that there are difficulties in the building industry. Indeed, there are some divisions of opinion within the building industry.
We listened in Committee to hon. Members opposite explaining their great expertise and knowledge of the subject. Some of them suggested that they better understand the needs and risks of school children than do teachers' organisations. In England an overwhelming mass of educational organisations are convinced that this change will be for the benefit of schools—

Mr. MacArthur: What about Scotland?

Mr. Ennals: It is true that the majority of teachers in Scotland take a different view. I recognise that we cannot burke views which are held in different parts of the country. In Standing Committee hon. Members sought to doubt the conclusions of the Road Research Laboratory and, presumably the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, both of whom considered this Measure and concluded that there would be advantages in terms of road safety, especially for children.

Mr. Buck: Will the Minister tell us where we can see the detailed evidence of the Road Research Laboratory? Hon. Members on both sides of the House have found this statement about what is likely to happen to road casualties extremely unconvincing, especially those arguments relating to accidents among young children.

Mr. Ennals: In Standing Committee I quoted the conclusions of the Road Research Laboratory, which hon. Members on both sides of the House recognised to be a responsible body and which had worked out the estimated saving in fatal and serious casualties as a result of this change. It was concluded that, while there would be more danger for those travelling early in the morning in the depth of winter, in the dark, there would be additional advantages for those travelling home from school in hours of daylight.
We have been told that the Government ought not to have paid much attention to the views of the representative organisations but should have relied on the corporate wisdom of the House, which, I suppose, in the view of hon. Members opposite, means the untested opinion of the opponents of the Bill. It is a privilege of the Opposition to pretend to omniscience, but the Government have been much more modest in their claims. Many hon. Members opposite said that they absolutely know that there will be no advantages in this change and that we should not experiment. What the Government said—and what we say—is that in our belief we should benefit from adopting the equivalent of Summer Time throughout the year and that this view has been steadily growing among informed opinion in this country. Thorough inquiries carried out over a wide range

of representative and expert opinion showed an indisputable majority to hold that view. It also showed a sizeable minority who, for understandable reasons, do not accept the view that this change will be beneficial, especially in the rural areas and especially because of the difficulties which it may bring in the construction industries.

Mr. Dempsey: And to industry.

Mr. Ennals: The Confederation of British Industry in Scotland and the Trades Union Congress in Scotland believe that the economic advantages are in favour of this Measure.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Minister said that the Government were much more modest in their claims than were those opposing the Bill. If they are showing such modesty, why have they felt it necessary to impose the Whips to get the Bill through?

Mr. Ennals: It is not a matter of imposing the Whips to get the Bill through. The Government having weighed all the considerations and reached the conclusion that it is in the interest of the country that this experiment should be conducted, it is reasonable for them to ask Government supporters to support the Government's decision in the Division Lobby. If there are differences among hon. Members opposite—and clearly there are—they are free to go into which ever Division Lobby they wish. If hon. Members look at what happened in Standing Committee, they will see that there was certainly as much freedom on the Government side of that Committee as there was among hon. Members opposite.
Having made these investigations and having assessed opinion, the Government felt that it was clear that the time had come to put the matter to the test of experience. We could go on for ever speculating over the effects of the change. From the nature of the matter, there could be no certainty without an experiment. There must come a time when hesitation is not wisdom but is mere timidity, and that point has been reached.
No responsible Government, I submit, could have ignored the weight of opinion in favour of the change. It is much greater than the Government expected to find when their inquiries were launched.


and it is to be found in most unexpected quarters. The Government have no wish, however, to be either foolhardy or unfair. They are proposing nothing irreversible. They are proposing merely that the community as a whole—every section of it—should be given a chance to test their opinions against the realities.
In this the Government are very far from being concerned only with the reactions of representative organisations. We care just as much about those of private citizens, whether they come from the extreme north of Scotland or from my own constituency of Dover. We are as much concerned with the opinions of the old as with those of the young. In Standing Committee we discussed the interests of the very young, but little was heard of the interests of the old, who form such a substantial part of our community. All the indications are that the change introduced by the Bill will be very much in the interest of the old people who will expect to receive the benefit of the extra hour of daylight in the afternoons. Those who are best able to speak for them, such as the W.R.V.S., believe this to be the case.
This is another indication of the tendency among those who oppose this experiment to entirely leave out of account the advantages to be gained at the end of the day and to concentrate on what will happen in the mornings. The old, perhaps more than any other section of the community, will benefit from this change.

Mr. Dempsey: Why?

Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend should be aware that retired people do not have great need, particularly in the dead of winter, to go out during the very early hours. Later on in the day they go out to do their shopping, draw their pensions, sit in the park and attend welfare centres. They will be able to get home before it is dark as a result of this extra hour. The Government have no doubt that they are right to make the experiment which is introduced by the Bill.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. Bruce-Gardyne rose—

Mr. Ennals: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I wish to conclude my remarks so that he and others have an opportunity of speaking.
On the information before us, we believe that this experiment is right, al-

though we are ready to be proved wrong. We ask that people approach this matter with open mindedness and that the opponents of the experiment have a little less commitment. The experimental period is, we believe, the minimum that can be allowed if the findings are to be credible.
Those who vote against the Third Reading will do so because they are so invincibly sure of their own judgment and think so lightly of the views of representative opinion that they do not consider that the issue need even be tested. It has been suggested that such a test was conducted during the war, but the circumstances then, with the hours of black-out, were quite unfair and unreasonable for the purposes of a test. In any event, the majority of young people have no recollection of that time.
I trust that, with these comments, hon. Members will give the Bill a Third Reading.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Buck: It might be convenient if I once again made the attitude of my hon. Friends towards the Bill entirely clear. The House will recollect that on Second Reading my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said that this sort of Measure should, in a civilised assembly, not be a matter for the Party Whips. I regret the jibe which we had from the Parliamentary Secretary about whipping. He is in a vulnerable position on this matter. This should be a House of Commons decision, untramelled by the Whips. Praise be, I suspect that on the benches opposite we have people like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who are impervious to the lash of the Whip and who, in spite of it, will allow this to be a matter of conscience.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that instead of speaking about this side of the House and the freedom of my hon. Friends to vote as they wish, he should address himself to the views of his hon. Friends, and perhaps wait until he knows the result of the vote before making too much of their views?

Mr. Buck: I would never presume to speak for hon. Gentlemen opposite. On


this side we are divided on this issue. However, we do not regard it as a party matter. Some of my hon. Friends believe that there are marginal benefits to be gained from the Bill. Others have come to the view that, marginally, it is not a good Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are equally divided, and that is why this should not be a matter for the Whips or for jibes about whipping from the Parliamentary Secretary.
In Committee we worked with a fair degree of amicability to endeavour to improve the Bill. As a result of pressure put on the Government, it has been improved, at any rate to the point of getting them to agree to an experimental period. I would have thought that a two-year experiment would have been adequate. The Government have not agreed with that, but at least they have agreed to introduce this change on an experimental basis; an alteration in the original position which they took, and that is to be welcomed.
Since this whole matter was fully dealt with in Committee, I will not delay the House. We in Britain have had a settled pattern of about 21 weeks of the year being Greenwich Mean Time and about 31 weeks being off G.M.T. This has been the settled pattern and convention. I admit that it has been an entirely arbitrary matter and that over the years we have changed our time so that we could more conveniently correlate our activities to the convention of the clock, bearing in mind the available daylight. This has worked. If we are to displace this convention—time is a convention; the position of the hands on the clock is governed by the position of the sun—a strong case must be made out.
If people must alter their patterns of behaviour because of an alteration in time, there is likely to be considerable disruption. In Committee a degree of the disruption that is likely to occur was emphasised. When I first considered this matter some years ago I was marginally in favour of the change, but as I have listened to the arguments both for and against, I have come to the conclusion that the balance is against rather than for the Bill.
I recognise, of course, that there are advantages appertaining to the

Measure. The Parliamentary Secretary was wrong to suggest that those who oppose the Bill do not recognise that there is certain merit in it. We appreciate, for example, that people will be able to arrive home in daylight and have more daylight in the evenings for leisure. I used to find the argument that we should correlate our time more closely to that of the Continent of Europe attractive—until I went into the matter in detail and discovered that the advantages are minimal. The Parliamentary Secretary is on record as having said the same.
I am against this change for a number of reasons. I do not accept that the plight of school children in country areas has been satisfactorily considered. How will the Bill affect them during the transitional period? This problem weighs heavily with me. I have many connections with the countryside and my constituency is a mixed urban and country one.
I have discussed the matter with those who are most likely to be affected, namely those who are involved in education in village areas and remoter parts of my constituency, and it seems obvious that there will be considerable difficulties for school children in the mornings. This applies a fortiori in northern parts of the country, although my constituency is a southern one. We hear that educational opinion in Scotland is getting near to unanimity against the Bill, whereas previously there were a number of organisations in that part of the country only expressing doubts.
I have been impressed, on examining the documents, by the case made by the building industry. The hon. Member for Walton made an impressive speech on this subject on Second Reading. I am convinced that the building industry will be considerably affected, particularly during the transitional period in the coming winter. Employers and some employees in the industry have spoken about safety. The early hours, just before dawn, are extremely dangerous from the safety point of view. The hon. Member for Walton spoke of those who must work on scaffolding which in winter is liable to be covered with ice, particularly in the early hours. He emphasised, as have others, the additional hazards that are likely to be placed on the building industry.
It is absurd merely to suggest that building sites can be lit. It is practicable to light only the very large ones and anybody who knows anything about artificial lighting is aware that, particularly on places like building sites, there is likely to be danger from pools of darkness. Perhaps in time the building industry will alter its habits, but the effect of the Bill will be disruptive on that industry both from the safety point of view and for its operating efficiency.
The arguments that impressed me most in Committee were those emanating from hon. Members from north of the Border and from the north of England. As one who represents a southern constituency, I would be reluctant to impose the degree of near-hardship which it seems likely will be imposed for a period on those in the northern part of the island without there being overwhelming advantages; in so doing. I have yet to be convinced that there are those overwhelming advantages.
There are other considerations. There is a commuter element in Colchester, many of its residents working in the City. The prospect of travelling to work in the morning in the dark did not receive a rapturous response from those commuters, in spite of the advantage of an extra half-hour of daylight in the evening.
By and large, I come out against the Bill because I think that it will cause some marginal degree of hardship to some of the most vulnerable and weak sections of the population. If there is a Division on Third Reading, I shall be inclined to vote against the Bill.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Dempsey: We should examine this problem as it affects others parts of the country. I am not at all impressed by the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that this will benefit the older people because although it will add an hour of darkness in the morning, from 9 o'clock to 10 o'clock, there will be a corresponding increase in daylight in the evening. I do not see where this sort of argument comes into the discussion. I have no old people in my constituency who go out at 9 or 10 o'clock, and I know that most of them are home early in the afternoon. During every Recess I visit all the clubs

in my constituency, and I know that all of them finish their proceedings by 3.30 so that the members can get home by 4 o'clock.
I am also very much surprised by my hon. Friend's argument that people will save fuel. In my part of the world, because of the climate, we use fuel even in the summer month of July. That point has no bearing on the argument.
I did not vote for the Bill on Second Reading because I have strong personal conscientious objections to the whole system. We should be honest, realistic and frank about the whole affair, and admit that this proposal is connected with the country's entry into Europe. In this way we are tying up with business and commercial interests in Europe. We are doing the spadework for the entry into Europe, and it is wrong to take such a step when, for a very long time to come, we shall have no real opportunity of entering Europe.
It would be much wiser to ask our industrialists to get up an hour earlier and start work an hour earlier, and in that way operate in line with European interests. We are being dragged along behind the lazy business executive—

Mr. Brewis: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that if these people did get up an hour earlier, it would not help very much with traffic congestion in larger places like London?

Mr. Dempsey: I am speaking from the point of view of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary comes from the south and has unintentionally spoken with a sort of southern bias. He was obviously impressed, for instance, by his fuel argument, but the climate here is much milder than it is in the North. I do not criticise him for speaking in that way. He is trying to build up the most effective case for the Bill, but I do not see any reason why Scotland should be dragged along behind lazy industrial executives. Indeed, I am surprised that my T.U.C. colleagues should pander to this type of emotionalism, when we are already doing fairly well in trading with E.F.T.A. and members of the European Economic Community. All this is being done on conjecture, and it is wrong to interfere with a long-standing practice on a basis of conjecture.
Hon. Members have referred to the effect of the change on children in the rural areas, but the Bill will affect children in industrial areas even more because there are more of them. It will mean that children will go to school in the morning in the dark. Wiseacres say that that is so, but that the children will be coming back in the evening in the light. That is to ignore the fear that is the most important element in the attitude of parents. When children go off to school in the dark in the morning there is no knowing that they have not arrived at school. That would not be known until the evening. During that period anyone could abscond with a child. I can say quite sincerely that this is the great fear of parents in my constituency.
I represent the two towns of Coatbridge and Airdrie. Coatbridge is the one town in Scotland that has had a phenomenal increase in the birthrate—it is the highest in Scotland. We have a lot of children of 5 years of age and upwards living in places from which they have to walk to school by circuitous routes, with no buses at all. One hon. Member opposite has told us that his children stand at the top of the road and wait for a public conveyance to take them to school, but I know of hundreds of children who have no public conveyance. Children at this early age can be the prey of the wicked elements in society, of which there are far too many at present.
It is this fear that is driving parents to an effort to prevent this Bill from becoming law. Without exception, all the people to whom I have spoken in the clubs, in the churches and other institutions have expressed apprehension of what will happen to young children who have to leave for school in the morning in the dark. This is a very legitimate fear. It is a realistic appraisal of what is likely to happen if this Bill is enacted, and I think that the Minister and my own Government have been wrongly advised in taking this decision. They have put far too much emphasis on elements of consideration not nearly so important as those to which I have referred. In this case they have got their priorities wrong. For that reason I did not support the Second Reading, and on conscientious grounds I cannot support the Third Reading.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Brewis: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). I agree with many of the arguments he put forward. He spoke about children from an industrial area whose parents would fear that they might be attacked, but one can put this matter on more mundane grounds. In a rural area a child might have an accident while on the way to school in the dark and his absence from school not being noticed, he may be discovered on a road which is infrequently used only because he did not arrive home at night.
I think the Government have been obsessed with the idea that there will be lighter afternoons all the year round. This argument has been presented as if we had not had Summer Time for many years. The existence of Summer Time from March to October procures the greater part of the advantages which can be saved by altering the clocks. I think it is generally accepted that we should have Summer Time between April and October but the extension to February in my part of the world has certainly been greatly resented. I am sure that the addition of British Standard Time all the year round will be resented even more. The possibility of saving daylight at the end of the day in those months when in future we shall have British Standard Time— from November to February—is very limited indeed.
There is a time in December when office workers who start work at 9 and finish at 5 will actually get less daylight because they will lose daylight in the morning and come out of their offices after sunset. This effect is accentuated further north when one gets into the Glasgow region. For example, on 22nd November, office workers in Glasgow will lose 54 minutes of daylight because they will arrive at the office while it is still dark and leave the office when it has already got dark. At present, they get at least 54 minutes daylight before they get to the office.
This effect goes on in Scotland until 6th January, so in Scotland the advantages of adding British Summer Time are infinitely less than in England. Many manual workers start work at 8 o'clock in the morning. For them the position will be even worse in the Border areas, the North of England and South-West


Scotland. At present those starting work at 8 o'clock in the morning in that area find that it is dark on 40 mornings a year, but under this system it will be dark on 105 mornings a year. This is bound to lead to considerable loss of efficiency among all outdoor workers, particularly building workers. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to speak better than I can on the disadvantages for building workers.
As was pointed out in Committe, it is pointless to say that people can start work an hour later and continue work until 6 p.m. If that were done there would be no point in changing the time. In Committee the Under-Secretary appeared to think that schools would be able to stagger their hours starting at the equivalent of 10.30 in the morning in winter. This would lead to considerable difficulties for working mothers. They would have to go to work at 9 and get their children ready for school although the children would not go to school until 10.30. It would also lead to great difficulties in the time-tabling and running of buses in country areas. At the moment time-tables can be arranged so that the buses take people to work and then take children to school.
I do not think this Bill enjoys the support which the Government say it does. There is a tendency for a Government to take a majority view, to consult 80 organisations and to say that because over 40 are in favour it must be right. The standing of many organisations is entirely different. For example, the Government asked the opinion of about eight organisations which are engaged in travel. Everyone engaged in travel, particularly over the 24 hour day like the airlines, is automatically in favour of a Bill such as this. The Government asked the views of about 10 organisations whose activities are concerned with afternoon sport. No fewer than six of the organisations are concerned with playing football.
The Government started with a built-in complement of 20 organisations—in the total of 80—which obviously would be in favour of the Bill. If I asked about 20 organisations concerned with people who work early in the morning, milk roundsmen, postmen and the like, I am

sure that I could arrive at exactly the opposite result. The Government have been completely hoodwinking people about the organisations consulted.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member is being less than fair. He knows that not only were sporting organisations and organisations with an interest in tourism consulted, but all the local authority associations, the Confederation of British Industries, the T.U.C., teachers' organisations, women's organisations and social welfare organisations. We had no reason to know the views of those organisations before we asked for them. We did not give them any guidance and they had no pre-committal to enter into what is contained in the Bill. This was a search for their views and we based our action on what came out of the search.

Mr. Brewis: The hon. Gentleman has not asked specifically anyone who works in the early mornings.

Mr. Ennals: The trade union movement.

Mr. Brewis: Six of the organisations were concerned with football and their sole activity is in the afternoons. I think this Bill will be very disadvantageous to Scotland and I shall certainly vote against it.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: I find myself in a position of complete opposition in relation to this Bill. On Second Reading I urged that there should be an experimental period. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary agreed that there should be a three years' experimental period, but, after thinking over the matter I consider that it would have been much wiser and more sensible if the Bill had not been brought in.
I have thought seriously about why the Government brought the Bill in. I have gone over the reasons time and time again and I have developed a theory. I have the theory that there are certain people, I am sure they are very honourable, civil servants, with a number of Bills stached away in pigeon holes which they bring out periodically and urge on successive Ministers. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not. On this occasion I think that they were successful in convincing my hon. Friend that it was right to bring the


Bill out of the pigeonhole and that it should be adopted by the Government, possibly on the argument, "You have not got much to do at the moment. This would be a good Bill for you to introduce. It would keep the boys happy. They would be busy going through the lobbies on this matter and would be diverted from other subjects".
I cannot think of any other reason. I have carefully examined the arguments adduced by my hon. Friend on Second Reading. One would have thought that one of the vital arguments would have been that there are immense economic advantages in this and that, therefore, the basic reason for the Bill is that we will gain tremendously economically. My hon. Friend said this on Second Reading:
… I have no wish to overpitch the economic arguments. We have found that, considering the whole economic aspect, the advantages and disadvantages are pretty evenly matched".
There goes the economic argument. It is not an overwhelming economic argument.
Possibly there are other arguments which are very good ones. My hon. Friend put one forward on Second Reading when he said this:
Hon. Members will not dispute that the change will have advantages for all outdoor sport, entertainment and leisure-time activities, although it is true that in the depths of winter these advantages may be apparent only at weekends."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 293–6.]
So even the advantages in relation to outdoor sport will apply only at weekends.
In future, a building operative working on a site where artificial lighting cannot be provided will perhaps go to work at 9 o'clock. He will then work an hour longer from his point of view, in the at five in the winter he will now finish at five in the winter he will not finish at six. Possibly he has an hour's journey home. He will reach home at seven. That is one hour's leisure time taken from him. His family is deprived of his presence for that hour. It is no good saying that he can have an extra hour in bed. He does not want an extra hour in bed. He will prefer to have the extra hour with his family, possibly going to the cinema or doing other things.
I do not think that the arguments are valid. I repeat that I think that my hon. Friend was presented with the Bill out of a pigeon hole and he thought that there was nothing better to do at the moment, so he will accept the Bill.
I oppose the Bill for three basic reasons. First, it is unnecessary. I cannot see why it has been introduced, unless it was to get us, as the London Chamber of Commerce has suggested, closer to the Continent. Everyone knows that I am a European, so to speak. I believe that Britain should enter the European Economic Community, using that argument and the corollary of the extra commercial efficiency which will follow, what about commercial efficiency in the United States? New York does not have the same time as Los Angeles. Does anybody suggest that inefficiency results and that they cannot conduct their business properly because they have different times?

Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend will agree that it would be a great advantage for the Americans if there was uniform time throughout that country.

Mr. Heffer: Of course it would be an advantage. The fact is that there is not a common time there. No one would suggest that American industry is inefficient because different times operate in various parts of America. That is a nonsensical argument.
I oppose the Bill, secondly, because I think that it will cause difficulties in industries such as the constructive industry and outdoor agricultural work. I have carefully studied the various speeches which were made in Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and I are not at one on most issues. On some issues we could never get very close. However, I am pleased that he quoted the speech I made on Second Reading. On this issue the hon. and learned Gentleman and I agree about the question of the building industry. He and other Members raised the question in Committee. It was brushed aside too lightly. There are problems as regards the building industry.
At present the employers' federation is still 100 per cent. against the introduction of the Bill. My side of the industry is always much more amenable and tries


to help everybody to get out of a difficulty. We are trying to help. We said that we do not like it, but that, if it is introduced, we will do our best.
It will mean that the whole basis of the national agreements on starting times, finishing times, dinner breaks, and so on, must be renegotiated. The National Joint Council for the Building Industry has issued guide lines throughout the country so that both sides can get round the table and begin to discuss the problems. They will run into difficulties with the membership, once the membership realises what is happening. The members may want overtime for the last hour. They may say, "We must now start at 9 o'clock, because you cannot provide artificial lighting. We shall want overtime from 5 o'clock to 6 o'clock". If the employers say "We are not going to pay overtime rates", there will be a few difficulties, to put it mildly. There are the questions of safety, the organisation of materials, and travelling time. I do not believe that my hon. Friends have paid sufficient attention to these very real problems which will arise in the building industry.
Thirdly, the Bill will cause very real problems, not only in Scotland, but also in the North of England and, because of the way the line sweeps, in Wales and other parts of these islands.
The Bill is not a vote catcher. My right hon. and hon. Friends are on a hiding to nothing. The people have not quite woken up yet to what it will mean. It is all very well for the Government to say that they have consulted many organisations. Organisations such as those have a long agenda. At the bottom of the agenda there is an item, "British Standard Time—approach by the Government for our views". The secretary says, "What does anybody know about this?" Somebody says, "Not very much. We are not really against it, are we?" The secretary says, "All right. We will tell the Government that we are not against it". Later they find out what it is that they have agreed to. The membership revolts and asks, "Why did you agree to it?" The reply is, "Unfortunately we did not understand what it meant". The public will understand once it is in operation.
I do not know whether other hon. Members are receiving letters on the

matter. I have been receiving them, and I do not live in the North of Scotland.

Mr. James Hamilton: According to HANSARD, my hon. Friend voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, as I did, but I wish to make perfectly clear that I agree with him in saying that we did not fully discuss the matter, and what he has said can be applied to the Constructional Engineering Union, of which I am the president.

Mr. Heffer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has underlined the point which I made and clearly shown what happens when, in a busy trade union organisation dealing with many issues, we do not, perhaps, understand all that is involved.
I have had several discussions on this matter with my hon. Friend, sometimes in the corridors, and a few harsh words have passed between us. He said that concessions would be granted, but I said that the best concession of all would be to drop the Bill. I make an appeal to him even at this stage. Let him have further thoughts about the Bill. Never mind what is written in the Bill—at the end of the first year of the three-year period let the Government have another look at it at that stage. In my opinion, in the light of the experience which they will gain throughout the country in that time, they will wisely decide not to go ahead with the Bill and it will be dropped altogether. If not, the electoral results will be disastrous.

7.30 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I welcome the opportunity to remind the Under-Secretary of State, lest he may be beginning to doubt it, that there are people who support him on this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Two."] No, there are more than two. Perhaps it is understandable that the opposition is a little more vociferous at this stage. I make no criticism on that account, because those who favour a scheme of this kind tend to feel that the battle is already won and there is nothing for them to say about it. At this stage, we are hearing the opposition and the views of those who realise that the Bill is soon to become a reality.
Like the Conservative Party, we in the Liberal Party have a free vote. I compliment the Conservatives on having


a free vote, and I fully accept that it is harder for them, a large Parliamentary party, to decide to have a free vote than it is for us. I pay tribute to them for doing it on this occasion. Just as they were right in doing it on the similar question of a decimal currency, they are right now, and I am glad that we are doing the same.
I took some encouragement from the speech of the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, from which I understood that if at the end of the experimental three-year period it were necessary to seek the opinion of the House again and the Conservative Party was then in Government, as seems not unlikely, the then Conservative Government would again have a free vote. One understands that that is the undertaking intended.
I readily acknowledge that there are different views on the Bill in my party. For my part, I have for a long time supported the object which the Bill will enact. Long before I came to the House I held that view. In one of my election addresses, before I was successful in coming here, I named it as one of my objectives, and it is a matter on which I have campaigned for some years.
I fully acknowledge that I have been motivated perhaps by rather limited personal considerations in that I found the biannual sudden change of routine an irritation. I found that it interfered with activities in which I was involved, though I freely admit that the life which I have lived has generally been in an urban society and the occupations in which I have been concerned have in general led me to the opinion which is represented by the Bill, tending to bring me into closer contact with the sort of people who favour such a move. I acknowledge that I have, as it were, developed that mode of thinking for reasons which are not necessarily absolute.
However, having formed that opinion, I have, as I should expect others to do, endeavoured to explore how the scheme will affect other people. I have been satisfied by the balance of argument. True, some of the arguments are marginal, but I regard the economic arguments as compelling. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) told us of arguments on the other side arising in the construction industry, but I can-

not speak about that with the expertise which hon. Members opposite have.
Generally, it is clear that there will be an immediate advantage in that firms engaged in commerce and business with countries in Europe will experience an immediate saving of about three hours of communication time each day, an hour at the beginning, an hour later, and an hour in the middle. I accept that a saving could be made by a rearrangement of their own without the need to change all the clocks of Britain, and I know that some firms have been so convinced of the advantages that they have changed their own clocks and endeavoured, as it were, to adopt the scheme unilaterally; but I regard the argument based on economic advantage as compelling. I am convinced by the arguments advanced by chambers of commerce and those who represent business and industry, as well as what has been said, not just blindly, by the T.U.C. itself. I believe that the T.U.C. has examined the scheme carefully and considers that, by and large, it is in the interest of its members.
Some of the other arguments are more marginal, for example, the suggestion that there will be a saving on fuel and power. There may be a saving. I have considered the argument that, by the rearrangement of our clocks and the change in people's habits, there may be a reduction in the consumption of power, but we shall not know this for certain. Neither shall we know for certain whether there will be much benefit in road safety and a reduction of accidents and injuries. This argument also is marginal or speculative, but I agree that theoretical considerations lead one to think that such a benefit is likely. One has even heard it argued by the police that there may be some effect in reducing crime. Again, this is marginal, but the change in the hours of daylight may have some such effect.
I freely acknowledge that some of the arguments are marginal and that I am motivated much more by what I regard as the most compelling reason, namely, the cessation of the biannual change in the routine of the country which, in my view, has a harmful effect on many different aspects of life.
I suspect that many of the arguments which we shall hear from Scotland and


from those concerned in agriculture are directed not at retaining the present system but at adopting Greenwich Meantime all the year round in Scotland. In other words, they are in part on my side because they recognise the damaging effect of the biannual change which we have had hitherto.
There are special problems for agriculture. Just because there are more people living in urban surroundings than living in agricultural or rural areas, we should not for a moment assume that the opinion of the former is necessarily more worthwhile than that of the latter. We must give full weight to what happens in rural areas and in an industry like agriculture. But the situation in agriculture has changed considerably since the beginning of the century. For example, fanners' methods of work have changed. The farmer is no longer tied to a routine dictated by the sun. In many ways he almost dictates the routine himself. Milking times and all sorts of times have changed. An hon. Member shakes his head, but animal husbandry is such that many animals, far from knowing what time it is, do not even know what day it is. Agriculturists have been able to reorganise their routine in many ways so as to rake charge of the clock to suit their convenience. They are not the slaves of the sun that they once were.
I believe that people in agriculture will be able to adjust to the change much more easily than they would have done some years ago, but I recognise that their own view has changed. When I first spoke to officers of the N.F.U. about the matter I was told clearly that it was not opposed to such a Measure. Those officers felt that many of their members might be opposed to it, but on balance they believed that the benefit they would gain from being able to operate a continual, round-the-year routine without two changes would compensate for the difficulties. Their view has rather shifted, because their members protested. I would have expected it to shift because there is a natural, almost inbuilt resistance to change in almost all of us, but I am not suggesting that the farmers' objections are not real. The nearer we come to change, the more we are inclined to examine the reasons for not making it, to look for a difficulty for the solution. Therefore, it is understand-

able that resistance should now be growing.

Mr. Noble: Would not the hon. Gentleman also consider that one of the reasons why these changes happen, not only in this case, is that the original opinion was given by chair-bound officers in an office, and that when they were told by their members what really went on they had to change?

Dr. Winstanley: I could not say how they arrive at their conclusions. But I should not regard some of the officers to whom I spoke as chair-bound. Many are practical farmers as active in agriculture as people at the periphery in the N.F.U. People in agriculture take both sides on this.
The Bill has been improved by the adoption of an experimental period. I am sure that the Minister is right to say that it will not be possible to say with certainty whether the effects are or are not as predicted until we have had such an experiment. With an experiment of a reasonable duration it will be possible to compile statistics and to assess to what extent there are real advantages.
I believe that when the system has been operating for a time people will become convinced of its value. When they have become used to it they will find it relatively easy to make the necessary adjustments. But I appreciate that I speak as a person who lives in a certain kind of area and lives a certain kind of life. We cannot say with finality what will be the views of the people of Scotland. It may be that the Scots will wish to apply their own solution, but we must sooner or later get away from the nonsense of messing about and altering the clocks once a year. For that reason I welcome the Bill, and particularly the fact that it is to be for an experimental period.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are debating time. Many hon. Members wish to speak.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Here we are in the middle of the summer, with high temperatures and the sun beating down, in a centrally-heated atmosphere. Perhaps in those circumstances it demands an enormous effort of imagination on the part of hon. Members to envisage the sort of situation about


which my constituents in the north of Scotland are complaining when they make their representations against the effects of the Bill.
We face a situation where young children will have to leave home in the middle of the country and stand shivering by the roadside at 6.30 in the morning, waiting for a bus to take them to school many miles away, where they may not necessarily have the opportunity of going into a warm classroom that has been prepared to receive them. We are talking about a situation of genuine hardship. It is a real situation, not a speculative one to be weighed in the balance against possible advantages. It does not require a three-year period of test; it does not require a one-year period of test. It is obvious to all that this will create difficulties and hardship in certain communities.
This must be weighed in the balance by all hon. Members in deciding their attitude to the Bill. I recognise that on this as on many other occasions, Members representing constituencies like mine find themselves obliged to weigh the national interest as it is conceived generally against the particular interests of the smaller number of people whom they represent, whose voice is not so loud and clamorous perhaps as that of the C.B.I. or even of the Scottish T.U.C. Despite that, we have an obligation to listen to these smaller voices and to weigh up the hardships that may be suffered by that smaller number of people against the speculative advantages which the Bill may confer.
The arguments put forward by the Government on the basis of broad national interest are sound in some respects. I have acknowledged this at earlier stages. I accept that there is much commercial advantage to be obtained from having a single time zone for the framework of our commercial relations.
I would tell my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that in my experience it is not true to say that it is not inconvenient on inefficient to have different time zones. I worked for a year in the State of New York, and every week I had to consult securities and exchange commissioners in the 50 States of the Union. That meant calling up people all round the continent,

and the very few hours in the day when it is possible to do this in a country with no fewer than five different time zones made it very awkward to get through the business. This will become increasingly true as our business becomes move internationally orientated.
But we are not yet in the situation which has been adumbrated. We are not yet so closely integrated that the inconvenience of one hour's difference in most cass from our Continental trading partners is of such overwhelming moment that we must regard it as a clinching argument. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State has never presented it as such. He has produced it as one of many minor make-weight arguments in favour of the scheme which the Bill puts forward. There are, of course, the savings in fuel which are envisaged and also—probably the most important—road safety, which he foresees will be benefited by this.
I am not impressed by the fuel argument. This is an argument about social convenience, about whether society can or should afford this service. I believe that, in this kind of argument, one has to weigh the social disadvantages as well. The extra fuel cost resulting to the country from the present system—I question whether it has been calculated by my hon. Friends—should be borne by the country for the sake of those living in rural or remote areas.
I fully accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walton about consultation. I do not think it enough for Ministers to play off one body which is in favour of this scheme against another which is not. Without examining the evidence these bodies have put forward, one cannot evaluate their final conclusion. This is a view which the House and the public generally would normally take of expert evidence—that it is only as good as the argument behind it. We know nothing of the arguments which have led the Scottish T.U.C. to support this proposal. I do not even know how long the debates were on the matter in the Scottish T.U.C. Perhaps they were rather cursory.
In my constituency, opinion was divided. Caithness County Council, for example, thought that we should see how the scheme worked, which is reasonable.


But some of its sub-committees, after protracted debates, came down on the side of opposition to the Bill. We should not be persuaded by the arguments of any single pressure group or organisation which has a vested interest, but should take account of all the arguments and try to weigh them up for what they are each against the other.
In the last analysis, if the economic and social arguments are only marginally on one side of the balance, we should be extremely reluctant to foist any time system on this country which creates the undoubted hardship this Bill can be seen to create in the circumstances I have described.
We in this country are always ready to listen to the arguments of industrialists because we are an industrial country. We are perhaps not so ready to listen to the arguments of the farming community as we should be, perhaps because the farming community represents a smaller proportion of the nation. Some three percent. of our community is involved in agricultural production. But that does not mean that the weight of their arguments is not considerable.
I am convinced that, in the present state of British agriculture, and not in the automated 1984 situation which the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) described, in which farmers still have to milk the cows and do not find it done automatically for them, where the shepherd still has to go out on to the hills and the eggs still have to be collected, the arguments against the Bill are powerful. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton is right about the building industry but I speak with no personal knowledge or experience of it and would not elaborate the point.
In sum, having considered all the arguments, having listened to the Government's case on a number of occasions and having read the debates with great care, I find myself ready to accept that of course people will adapt themselves to this situation, however unpleasant or awkward, and will make the best of it. But they should not be asked to make this adaptation because it seems so patently unnecessary. If the Government cannot see fit to take the Bill away altogether, I hope that they will follow the advice of my hon. Friend, who speaks

with great sense and will look at this again before the three-year period is up and will consider some of the arguments which have been made today.
Much has been made of the question of whether this is a matter of conscience or not. Some of my hon. Friends have said that, in conscience, they cannot support the Government. I cannot conceive it as a matter of conscience in the normally conceived sense. But it is a matter directly affecting my constituency and although the opinion of my constituents has been divided, I have made up my mind and consequently I find it impossible to support the Government in this matter.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: My constituents are unanimously opposed to the Bill and therefore I have no difficulty in deciding to vote against it. It is a bad Bill. First, at a time when we are trying to get productivity away from the South-East into the North-East and Scotland, we are putting a handicap on those who live in the North-East and Scotland and that is unwise at present. Secondly, there is the agricultural argument. I was interested in the agricultural experiment of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). I invite him to get on to a tractor at 8 a.m. in February and try driving it in the dark in my constituency. I should like to see what kind of furrow he had ploughed at the end of the day.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And on an icy road.

Mr. Turton: Quite. Clearly, this will affect agriculture in the North of England.

Dr. Winstanley: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me. I accept that this will mean a change and possibly difficulties for orthodox farmers—and, incidentally, I have relatives who are farmers. All I am saying is that modern techniques of husbandry which are becoming more widely established mean that many farmers are not dependent upon the clerk of the time. That is the point I made and I am sure that he will recognise its validity.

Mr. Turton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is only interested in intensive agriculture. Yet Cheshire is great dairy country and one cannot get round the fact that


cows must be milked, even in a 1984 way. The fact is that this Bill is an added burden on the agricultural industry at a time when we should be trying to save imports by increasing home production. Therefore, it is a bad Bill.
My third and last point concerns the schools in my constituency and, I expect, those in the constituencies of many other Members. My education committee is violently opposed to this proposal. It has gone into some detail about what it will entail. At present, it is able to get all primary school children to and from school in daylight during the 12 months of the year. As a result of the Bill, a great proportion of primary school children will have to be in darkness for half an hour for four months while going to school. That is the measure of the difficulty. That will be bad from the point of view not only of education but of road safety.
In my county, 25 per cent. of the accidents to children under 15 years of age occur during the hours of darkness, which are to be extended. Since I was absent at a Select Committee, I have heard only at second hand what the Under-Secretary of State said, but I gather that he made a suggestion about some alteration in school hours. That possibility has been investigated by my education committee. Because it is at present using 500 vehicles and spending £300,000 a year on transport, it would be impossible for it to alter the half hour in question because the vehicles, which are mostly public service vehicles, cannot be altered to suit its requirements. If they can be, there will be a very large additional rate burden on my constituents.
For those three reasons, I believe that this is a bad Bill. I do not think it is made a better Bill by the new Clause which makes it a temporary Measure for three years, because if school children are killed during that time, if agricultural production is held back at a time when we want more agricultural production, or if industry is switched to the South-East and away from the North and Scotland, irretrievable harm will be done. Therefore, I shall vote against the Bill.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: I listened with interest to the arguments put forward

by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). However, they have permeated the discussion today, in Committee and on Second Reading. I do not support them. This is a small Measure, a minute Bill, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that it will have a profound effect for some time on many of the population and, in a way, an effect which is far greater than many of the more important Measures which we pass, because it will have an immediate effect on people's lives.
I agree very strongly with the views expressed on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. The arguments basically are fairly evenly matched. I cannot help feeling that many of the arguments for and against the Bill have been stretched too far and have been pushed too hard for credibility. There is a certain agreement among all of us, whether we support the Bill or not. I should have thought that, broadly speaking, those who support it represent urban areas and have urban interests and that those who oppose it have rural interests.

Mr. Heffer: No.

Mr. Parkyn: My hon. Friend says "No". We all know the problems of the building industry. Perhaps if I were to refer to those who work outside that would make it a little wider.
We have two problems which are diametrically opposed. First, I should have thought that there was agreement that we needed one time zone for the whole of Western Europe. Secondly, many of us feel that we are being put into the wrong time zone, a zone which is more appropriate to Berlin than to this country. On one side, there is obviously great advantage in having one time zone for the very large population in Western Europe, such as the population which there is in the time zone in the Eastern part of the United States or in the mid-time zone or in the West Coast zone in the United States. The problem has always been to counter the argument about the desirability of having one time zone in this area with the problem of our being put in the wrong time zone. We all know that we should get the Europeans into our time zone rather than that we should join theirs.
I cannot help feeling that many of the arguments about road accidents and the problem of schools and school buses and the advantages of businesses communicating with the Continent have, on the whole, been pushed a little hard. Basically we are trying to balance the advantages of having one time zone with the problem of being in the wrong zone. I come down in favour of having one time zone.
A point which was made very strongly by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) on Second Reading was that, whatever else Parliament can do, we cannot affect the relationship in space between the earth and the sun. Perhaps it is fortunate that we cannot. Because of this, if we put the clock forward or back a few hours, in twenty years' time people, being what they are, will adjust their way of life accordingly. Therefore, it is not all that important whether we support the Bill or not. On balance, I come down in favour of supporting it, particularly in view of the new Clause to which we are agreed, to operate it for an experimental period of three years. I urge my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite to support the Bill.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Noble: I have listened with great interest to the whole of the debate. I was impressed by two things said by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) said that the Minister had produced no evidence and no facts; he had merely produced judgments. That is true. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) quoted what the Minister had said on Second Reading to the effect that there was only a very small balance in deciding whether the proposed change would be of benefit to the economy.
We are asked to consider a Bill which on the Minister's own assumption, with which many of us would agree, that if there is any economic advantage it is very small. We on this side do not claim omniscience, as the Minister said, but we do claim that we know something about how our constituents feel. Like the hon. Member for Walton, I have had a very large number of letters on this subject, I think more than I have had on any other subject since I have been

a Member. Out of all of them from all over Scotland I have had one letter supporting the Bill. Therefore, it does not look as though there are many people in Scotland who passionately feel that the Bill is right.
The reason why I oppose the Bill and will vote against it—I should vote twice if I had the power—is that the Government know that the balance of economic advantage is very narrow, because they have said so. They know that in the rural areas throughout the country, but particularly in the North of England and in Scotland, there is almost unanimous opposition to the Bill.
The point was made by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) that agriculture was changing. Of course it is, but he did not say that one of the major changes in agriculture is that very much smaller numbers of men are being employed to do jobs. These men have to work early and late, and there is no shift system to get the cows in from a field in the dark and the cold.
In looking at this problem the Government have come down in favour of the Bill for two seriously wrong reasons. The first is that when one is considering which is in balance one should try to favour that section of the community which needs help most. There is no question whatever—the Minister said it—that there are certain sections of the country badly affected. By pure chance these happen to be the areas in the north and Scotland which Governments over the last two years have been doing their best to encourage and to get going. This Bill is flatly contradictory to the policy of the Government and the policy which would be supported by every party at election time.
Secondly, and I do not make this point with any tremendous verve, but I believe that it is right, we in this House live a most unnatural life. We often do not know whether it is day, night or morning, and it does not make very much difference to us because we are in this large room, adequately controlled for heat and light. It does not mean that many of us who worked out of doors before we came into this House have forgotten the difficulties, dangers and discomforts of working out of doors in all weathers.
This is a human problem and these people deserve special consideration. I do not disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) when he said that we are an industrial nation, and industry as a whole wants this. I think that he meant commerce. Never mind, these people are working in much better conditions, in offices and shops. We in Parliament often legislate to make certain that they are pleasant, comfortable, warm and light places to work in. These people can be protected, but those working out of doors cannot. The Government are seriously wrong in bringing this Bill forward, because it most affects the parts of the country which should be most carefully looked after. It affects most severely those who have to work out of doors, when no government can control the weather, or make their work in bad weather more pleasant.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I voted for the Government on Second Reading of this Bill, but I find that I cannot vote for the Government tonight, after listening to the speeches in the House and in Committee. I am not violently opposed to the Bil, but I do not see how anyone representing a rural constituency in Scotland could possibly represent his electors by voting for the Bill. What is the evidence that the Minister has produced? I have a great deal of sympathy for him, because he has had to meet a large volume of criticism from a great many quarters. He began his defence of the Bill by talking about the London Chamber of Commerce.
I have no great prejudice against the London Chamber of Commerce, except to say that it does not have a great deal of influence in Scotland. I would not be prejudiced against it on nationalist grounds however. If the London Chamber of Commerce is so keen about this Bill, surely it has representatives in this House who could come along and give it enthusiastic support. In issues concerning the Chamber it is not usually silent, yet from the benches opposite, which usually represent big industrial organisations, the voices of the London Chamber of Commerce and the Confederation of British Industry have not been heard.

No one has come forward and said that this is vital for the future of the country's industry.
We have heard about the T.U.C. It, too, has representatives in this House. If this was a matter upon which the T.U.C. or about which the Scottish T.U.C. were greatly concerned, I would hardly have an opportunity of speaking in this debate, because of those who come here and put the point of view of the T.U.C. I am driven to the conclusion that there is no great enthusiastic body of opinion, organised at any rate, ready to go to the stake for this Bill. It is a very unpopular Bill, and to my mind the case for it has become weaker and weaker as the debate has proceeded. It is unfortunate that the Minister represents Dover. As I said in Committee, the more I heard him speak the more I became convinced that Dover might be presented to Calais and that it has very little in common with, say, Inverness or Ayrshire.
I cannot believe that his arguments would impress Scotland at all. All along I have been wanting to hear an authoritative, enthusiastic case from the representatives of the Scottish Office, in favour of this Bill. I do not think we will get this, because there were rumours, with which no one is associated, that the Scottish Office was, at the beginning, against the Bill. If the Scottish Office had been against the Bill it would be representing the point of view of the people of Scotland. I agree with those who have spoken about the difficulties of farmers. It is essential, if we are to get more productivity, that we should listen to the farmers' point of view about the hours they work.
There is no doubt that in Scotland farmers are against the Bill, and that their wives, too, are against it. The letters I have received from the Rural Institutes, representing the rural point of view, are more emphatic about this issue than any that has come up for some time. I realise, as the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) does, that this will mean hardship for children in rural areas, coming to school in the darkness. I agree too with other reasons put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey).
Slippery roads and discomfort, and many other difficulties, outweigh completely the arguments of the people from the London Chamber of Commerce, the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., who have never even come along to attend this debate. I cannot believe that they will be bitterly disappointed if the Bill is not approved. I cannot conceive that the industrial prosperity of this country, its economic efficiency, will be affected by ·001 per cent. as a result of this Bill. Those of us who have protested on behalf of Scottish constituents are doing our duty and have the overwhelming volume of public opinion behind us. We have the teachers, the E.I.S.—unfortunately the Minister thought that the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association represented Scotland. I can understand his ignorance of this matter. The obvious lack of knowledge on his part was apparent to every Scottish Member of the Committee.
The Church of Scotland is also against the Bill. Therefore, if we take a cross-section of public opinion in Scotland, the overwhelming expression of opinion would be against the Bill. Apart from the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., if anything like a referendum, a plebiscite or a Gallup poll could take place in Scotland, I am sure we would find our people would be overwhelmingly against the Bill.
The miners in my constituency are not greatly affected, because they have to work in the dark anyway. It is largely irrelevant to them if the Bill goes through. But if one has to travel in the early hours of the morning in winter—I have to travel to the airport across Mearns Moor—one finds a large number of workers: bus drivers and conductors, milkmen, and those who deliver newspapers. This section of public opinion should be considered. I would not be justified in supporting the Government going ahead with a Bill which has so little popular support in Scotland.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) is not here, but the matter which he raised about the chambers of commerce has also been dealt with by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). The interrogation of the hon. Member for Cheadle can perhaps be answered in this way. I do not believe

that the chambers of commerce were pressing for this Bill. I think that they were asked for and gave their opinions by that somewhat obscure mechanism which has been described by many hon. Members. Those opinions, reached in that somewhat haphazard way, are now quoted in support of the Bill. However, it would be wrong to give the impression that there was spontaneous pressure from the chambers of commerce for the Bill.
The question I asked myself was the question which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked himself, namely: why was this Bill ever introduced? I do not know that I shall be able to supply an answer to that question, but perhaps I may explain how I approached this matter and how I come to be interested in it.
There is an international system for time, agreed in 1884 at the International Prime Meridian Conference. I think that one should stick to the internationally agreed system unless one can make a strong case for departing from it. That is the way I approached it. If one can make a compelling case, one may perhaps justifiably abandon the system to which, on the whole, everybody throughout the world works. Therefore, I say that the burden of proof lies upon the Government.
Have the Government discharged that burden? Again, I find it very difficult to see how they can even think that they have discharged it. One might ask, as the hon. Members for Walton, for South Ayrshire and for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) asked: is there some great economic advantage which the Government ought to take into account and commend to Parliament as a powerful reason why the international system should be broken by Britain? But the Government do not tell us that. We should have to take serious account of it if the executive Government of the country said that, but they do not. They say that in the whole economic field
the disadvantages and the advantages are evenly matched.
Therefore, we do not have to consider all these economic arguments, because we are advised by the Government that they cancel out.
The Government have said that the deciding factor is the social advantage. When it comes to social advantage I think that we are all well qualified to


speak for our constituents. Economics is a more difficult matter. One may have to consider statistics and consult economists. Whether one would get the right answer by consulting economists is open to doubt. If one consulted several, one might get many different answers. However, when it comes to social advantage, surely people can speak for themselves and hon. Members in all parts of this House can speak for their constituents.
I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State is not present. I do not regard the Bill in its impact upon the people as a triviality. I think that we ought to have had present this afternoon the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, or at least the Secretary of State for Scotland, because, if the Bill goes through tonight, it will go out from this House as an Act of Parliament. Yet, those of us who have been present in this Chamber know that Parliament does not want to do this. We also know that the public do not want it. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire said that he wished there could be a referendum or some such method of consulting the public direct. Members of Parliament hear pretty quickly what their constituents want. Therefore, we all know that the public, by a considerable balance, is against the Bill, although that would not diminish the authority of Parliament to pass a Statute if it thought it wise to do so.
The Under-Secretary could hardly claim that the Government had won the debate. Only three hon. Members, of all who have spoken from both sides, have supported the Bill.

Mr. James Davidson: Two, I think.

Mr. Bell: I am obliged. I was being over-generous. No, it is three. There was on hon. Member who, after balancing back and forth three times, decided in the end that, by the way the scale came down, he would support the Bill, so there are three.
On Second Reading we had 21 speakers from both sides, 17 against and four in favour. Today, it has been three in favour. Everyone knows that if we had a free vote in the House tonight the Bill would be defeated. Therefore, if the Bill goes out as an Act of Par-

liament it will be because of those Members who, when the bells ring, will come in from the Tea Rooms and other parts of the building, having heard nothing of the debate, and vote solely in accordance with the instructions of the Whips.
That is a bad thing. When great issues are at stake the Government party must have cohesion to carry through the main policy of the State. There are occasions when the balance of Parliamentary opinion is in doubt to such a degree that no scandal attaches to the use of the Whips, but, from the overwhelming balance of this debate, the debate in Committee, and the Second Reading debate, everybody knows that if this Bill goes through it will do so owing to the power of the Executive to control party power by the dog licence system, and that is bad for the reputation of Parliament. That is why I say the Secretary of State should have been here to listen to the debate, because only he has authority to say that the Government will withdraw the Motion for the Third Reading and consider the matter again in the light of what hon. Members have said about this proposed legislation. It is very sad that the matter is going forward differently from that.
I want to recapitulate, almost under headings, the reasons why I opposed, and still oppose, the Bill. First, there is the educational aspect, and this has been mentioned by many hon. Members. During the last few months education committees throughout the country have been considering the implications of the Bill. West Bromwich is thinking of buying 20,000 luminous uniforms for school children so that they might avoid danger in the dark. In my constituency one small authority is proposing to incur an expenditure of £600 to keep the street lighting on all through the night so that during the four months affected by the Bill children will be able to go to school in the light. The Bill applies just to the four mid-winter months. Why anyone should bring in a Bill to give us this experience in the four mid-winter months puzzles me.
Next, there is the construction industry. The hon. Member for Walton knows so much more about this than I do that I feel it is almost an impertinence to speak about this industry. The Government talk about social advantage but the


danger to workers in this industry—to which the hon. Member for Walton referred in detail during the Second Reading debate—of increased liability to accidents in the earlier hour, the one hour of extra darkness and coldness in the morning, is so great that I do not see how they can be in favour of extending British Summer Time to these four months.
Agriculture has been referred to by many hon. Members who know more about this industry than I do, so I shall say no more about that.
I wonder whether the Government have considered another aspect which has not been mentioned since the Second Reading debate, and that is the strain on electricity supplies? The morning rush will become even more concentrated. We know that the Government's advice to the House at the beginning of the discussions on the Bill was that the electricity supply industry had advised them that it would be able to manage because there was enough spare capacity—by the way, it does not sound much like fuel saving—but that was at a time when industrial production was stagnant. I do not know whether the Government are forecasting continued stagnation in industrial production, but if they are hoping for a considerable expansion they must realise that the margin of generating capacity upon which the earlier advice was given will have disappeared. What will the Government say if, having introduced this Measure, we are faced with power cuts in that hour of darkness and cold of the morning rush which they have brought into existence? I mention that only because the Government's whole case is social advantage. I ask the Government to realise that they have not made out any sort of case and that the burden of proof lies on them.
Perhaps I might conclude by quoting the words of the Under-Secretary of State during the Second Reading debate. Having run through the economic picture and given us the summary which I have quoted, and then having referred to various conflicting aspects of social advantage—which I must say did not seem to me to add up to a case in favour of the Bill—he concluded with these remarkable words, which were applied not to the economic factor, but to the general conspectus:
We are going in the dark here.

Those are appropriate words
We do not know what the consequences will be. We can make our studies and research on the best possible information with such details as we have, but it is obvious that only time will tell."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 364.]
The Under-Secretary says that that is why the Government have introduced the experiment; time will tell. That is all very well. We can have all sorts of odd legislation on that principle—"We do not know what the effect will be, but let us have a bash and see what happens". An international time system which, with few exceptions, is observed by civilised countries, was established by the International Prime Meridian Conference of 1884. Europe is in the Central European Time zone. It is on its right time. France is a rogue elephant, and is in breach of the agreement, but only just, because part of it is in the Central European Time zone, and therefore it is not a great fault that France should have tipped into the wrong zone.
But we have not the shadow of an excuse. The whole of Britain, except for Dover and places in the same area, lies west of the Greenwich meridian. The United Kingdom lies in the Greenwich Meridian Time zone except for a tiny piece which lies in zone plus 1, to the west of the Greenwich Time zone.
Ours, therefore, is a gross and flagrant breach, and the Government have no right to say that they do not know what the accumulative balance of advantage and disadvantage, economic and social, will be; they are merely having a bash and they will see what happens. It is not a case to put before Parliament, and it is a disgrace that after the two debates we have had the Bill is not being withdrawn. It is the duty of the Undersecretary to send for the Secretary of State in order that he can hear what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, and can reach a decision whether the Motion for the Third Reading should be agreed to tonight.

8.37 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I want briefly to contribute to the opposition to the Bill. I do so because in recent times few Measures have brought to Members—certainly those representing Scottish constituencies—the amount of correspondence which has


been my lot in this case. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has said, the Government have sought to justify the Bill on the balance of social advantage. There is no such balance of advantage for my constituents. I have been very impressed by the amount of correspondence that I have received, especially concerning children who will have to go to school under much less safe conditions after this Bill is passed.
I do not want to dwell upon the agricultural position, which is of primary importance to Scotland; it has already been well covered. My constituency contains a considerable range of small fanners who are responsible for taking milk supplies to Glasgow. I am sure that this duty will be made no easier by this Measure. I want to enter a plea for them, to accompany the many pleas which have been made on behalf of agriculture by my hon. Friends.
I want, however, to dwell primarily upon the effect of the Bill upon education. In any big city this is of the utmost importance. It is right to bring to the notice of the Government the stark fact, which they are so reluctant to regard, that there have been considerable cuts in the school building programme. The relevance of that to this debate is that many children are obliged to travel to get their education. This is equally true in the northern part of England. We are discussing a Measure which becomes increasingly unfavourable to the community as we move north.
There is a well-known case of children having to travel as much as an additional two miles on top of what they would normally expect because of the cut in the school building programme—I see the Under-Secretary lookng unhappy, as I had hoped he would. In fact, that case is just south of his responsibility, but it is a practical illustration of the kind of difficulty which inadequate school buildings inevitably bring about. Therefore, at worst, there are school children who have to travel a considerable distance across a built-up area to get their normal educational facilities. I cannot think that it is to their advantage that they should do so spending a longer period in the dark than hitherto.
At the other end of the scale is the rush hour and the question of what time it begins and to what extent the Bill aggravates conditions. Therefore, I put forward with emphasis the plea put to me by so many parents, that, in educational terms, this is a very unfortunate Bill.
Then there is the question of the construction industry. I am sorry that I did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but, just as I have had wide correspondence about the educational problems with the Scottish office, so I have had correspondence with the Ministry of Public Building and Works about the construction industry. As a result of a Parliamentary Question which I put some time ago, I have a detailed account of those institutions which were asked for their views and it is significant that those who were against this change are so widely representative of the construction industry.
The Minister has said in correspondence that there was no unanimous view and that this was clearly a question which left a good deal of scope for personal opinion. It is because of my personal opinion that I am making this speech. The Minister went on to confirm what those Ministers who are present are probably already aware of, that, among the organisations consulted in the building industry, was the N.F.B.T.E., which opposed the change and gave very cogent reasons for doing so. Also, the F.C.E.C. opposed the change. This seems a significant body of opinion in the construction industry. There is also a list of those who have expressed views which are not unanimous or about which there were definitely divided opinions.
On the whole, it seems that the Ministry, having consulted the construction industry widely, has received no information which would suggest that the change is to the benefit of that industry. Since in Scotland, we have, to date, had perhaps rather less industrial building than in any other part of the United Kingdom, it seems of particular importance that the traditional building methods should go ahead with the least impediment which the Government can devise—and, with respect, they have devised some pretty big impediments to the building industry in their time of office. I very much hope that these


three important facets of our life—agriculture, building and education—will be given much greater consideration than they have been given to date when this issue is decided.
Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I understand that the proposition that the period of the experiment should be reduced was very well argued. The least that the Government could have done was to yield to that pressure. The weight of opposition to this proposal is such that I am amazed that the Government have persisted with it. I very much hope that they will discharge their responsibility honourably in that, if it proves to be the disaster expected, they will, even at this late stage, reduce the period of the experiment to only one year.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: It has already been noted that of those who have spoken in the debate only three have supported the Bill. One was the Minister and of the other two one was my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), with whom I disagree on this point. Incidentally, reference was made to my hon. Friend's lack of knowledge of farming. Hon. Members may be interested to know that he has two uncles farming in my constituency.
I have had many letters about this Bill, all opposed to it. I have not had one letter in favour of the Bill. That is significant, and it is representative of the experience of other Scottish Members. I do not intend to speak long in the debate, and perhaps I ought to declare my interest. In fact, my interests are five—my interest as a parent, my interest as a Scot, my interest as a farmer, my interest as a European and my interest as a former navigator—all relevant to the Bill.
As a parent, I would point out that I farm at 850 feet in a very cold part of Aberdeenshire and that I have two young children attending the local school. I dislike at any time seeing them leave for school in the dark, having to wait for up to half-an-hour at the end of the road for the school bus. I am certain that my views are shared by other parents in similar circumstances when I say that I would much rather that they came home in the dark at the end of the day when the snow

ploughs had had a chance to clear the road and life was on the move. It has been suggested that the Bill will lead to a saving in fuel. In fact, families in the rural areas will have to get up earlier, and more fuel will be used.
The view which I take on this issue as a Scot has been clearly put by the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), who pointed out that all Scotland lies considerably to the west of the Greenwich meridian, and, indeed, that all but a tiny part of the British Isles lies to the west of it. It is all very well for the Government to talk about our being linked in time with Europe, but by looking at the map the Minister will see that we lie considerably to the west of Europe. They get the sun on average much more than an hour before we do, because it rises in the east—an obvious point but one which has not been made in the debate.
As a fanner, I have three arguments to make. At hay and harvest time in our part of the world, we must frequently wait until 11 a.m. or noon until the dew is off the crop and the hay before we begin work. The change proposed in the Bill will mean an extra hour to wait and at the end of the day we shall have to pay for at least an extra hour of overtime, which is another burden on farmers.
I have made my comment about Europe. Finally, as a navigator, I put the point that there is a scientific basis for the time zone in which we lie. G.M.T. is in international use. Indeed, Clause 1(2) states:
Nothing in this section affects the use of Greenwich mean time for purposes of astronomy, meteorology, navigation …
It is just as well that it does not.
Why not stick to G.M.T., which was arrived at on a sound scientific basis? If firms and organisations wish to alter their working hours to get an earlier start or to give more time to their employees to work in their gardens at the end of the day or drink beer in the sunshine, let them rearrange their working hours. But why need we confuse the issue with this Measure? What was the origin of the thought behind the Bill? Whence comes the great upsurge of popular demand for the all-year-round establishment of B.S.T. one hour in advance of G.M.T.? Is it, as I suspect, just one more example


of the Government's reluctance to let well alone?
I am far from being a Conservative, but I believe that G.M.T. derives from a sensible scientific basis, that we should stick to it and that we should leave it to the free choice of employers, in consultation with employees, to rearrange their working hours as necessary. Unless the Minister has purposely closed his ears during the debate—and, being a reasonable man, I am sure that he has not; nor has the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—he must be aware that this is a thoroughly unpopular Bill. Not a tenable argument has been adduced in its favour while many sound arguments have been adduced against it.
The Government must be aware that if the Whips were not on on the benches opposite, the Bill would not stand the remotest chance of being passed. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken against the Bill will have the courage to vote against it.

8.53 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): It was not my intention to intervene in the debate, but in view of the comments that have been made by hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies, it may be convenient if a representative of the Scottish Office speaks at this time.
I apologise to hon. Members, particularly those from Scotland, who still wish to speak and who will address the House after me. I speak at this point because had I waited to reply until all Scottish hon. Members had spoken, hon. Members would probably find themselves faced with two Government speeches in reply, which, if not a record, might have confused the issue.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. Bruce-Gardyne rose—

Mr. Buchan: I have not said anything yet.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would the hon. Gentleman explain why he cannot reply to the whole debate?

Mr. Buchan: Simply because many general arguments have been adduced as well as arguments relating specifically to Scotland. I want to deal with the arguments addressed specifically to Scotland.

My speaking now seems the most satisfactory way of dealing with the matter; and then my hon. Friend the Undersecretary will deal with the general arguments. Although he represents Dover, he is well aware of the problems facing the United Kingdom as a whole in this matter.
Many Scottish hon. Members have expressed anxiety—they have reflected the genuine anxiety that has been expressed in Scotland—about the Bill. I assure them that these anxieties have not been ignored. We are well aware of them and they have been thoroughly considered. It is equally true that a large number of organisations have objected to the Bill.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) pointed out that there is a tendency, particularly when we reach a certain time with Parliamentary proposals, for one side to cease making representations. On such an occasion people note that the Government have come forward with a Bill, after which there is a tendency for those who wish to protest to go on making representations, while those who do not protest become inactive. In other words, one side continues while the other does not say, "We support the Bill." I am not exaggerating this state of affairs. This is really the way in which human beings work and it is inevitable. Indeed, it is the correct order of democracy. Perhaps hon. Members have ignored the fact that the voice of democracy has been listened to because what we have been discussing is the introduction of a change for an experimental period. Perhaps hon. Members should have paid more attention to this fact when adducing arguments concerning Scotland. We may be right or we may be wrong in what we are doing, but we say, "Let us see how the thing works." I know that we are dealing with a serious matter, and not with a triviality, but it is still not a matter of such account that it cannot be left to experiment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. MacLennan) stressed, as did other hon. Members, the difficulties in connection with children. He said that this was not a matter needing experiment; that it was not speculation, but that we know what will happen. Again, I think that some hon. Members


tend to underrate human ingenuity and human adaptability. In human affairs, as things happen human beings can take measures to deal with them, and they can adapt themselves to new situations.
It is not true to say that every local body in Scotland was opposed to the Bill. By and large, I think that the largest number of representations was 92—not 91 as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said—

Mr. MacArthur: I was quoting last week's figure. The Under-Secretary will recognise that the number increases week by week.

Mr. Buchan: And we have been informing the hon. Gentleman of the increase, and, by and large, most of the representations have come from local authorities in rural areas. I must inform my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that we have not been getting this kind of representation to any great extent from industrial area. Nevertheless, I accept that that does not mean that there is not anxiety, There is a general feeling that an experimental period is perhaps the most satisfactory solution.
I recognise the difficulties that arise in agriculture—

Mr. Dempsey: Individual authorities have made representations opposing the Bill. I believe that both the Glasgow Corporation and the Edinburgh City Council have indicated their opposition.

Mr. Buchan: Not according to my information, and we published the information in the House on 25th June—

Mr. Dempsey: It was stated in Committee.

Mr. Buchan: Then a correction might have been made earlier.
I recognise the difficulties with regard to young people, but we also have to consider the old people. The point was made that the Bill will not affect them one way or the other in the morning because they do not go out between 9 and 10 o'clock, but it is precisely because of that fact that the extension of daylight in the afternoon is of assistance to them. They will be affected favourably in the afternoon on returning from their associations, and the like.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I think that from the Government side we have had the most fatuous explanation of the problem of the old people that we have had of anything. The Under-Secretary said that the old people do not go out in the mornings so they benefit in the evening, but he has to establish the fact that they go out in the evening. I suggest that on this aspect he is quite wrong.

Mr. Buchan: I do not object to being called fatuous if the hon. Gentleman will only listen to the argument. That statement did not come from me but from one of my hon. Friends who said that old people will not be affected in the morning because they do not leave home between the hours of 9 and 10 o'clock. I accept that, but I say that the balancing extension of daylight in the evening is in favour of old-age pensioners.
I have intervened, not to deploy the arguments for or against but to try to outline, I thought fairly, the reflection on the balance of opinion in Scotland. The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said that on balance we should help those who most need help. He recognised that the Government's policy has been to help the North and the Highlands. I was grateful for that concession. He said this Bill is flatly contradictory to that, but I am glad that the recognition has been made that our general policy has been of assistance. We might have been given credit for the fact that our assistance has not been of the kind which would harm those areas. I see one hon. Member opposite nodding in agreement.
On the effect on industry in Scotland and elsewhere there has been strength in the argument put by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). Despite that and despite the fact that we have been accused of cuts which it is said have held back the construction industry in housing, factory building and school building, that is not so for record figures have been achieved in the construction industry.
We recognise the anxiety which exists among many people and organisations. Many of them have been divided in their views on this matter. I accept the criticism about the speed at which the decision was made but this argument cannot be used in both ways. If it is said that we took decisions too quickly,


the number of organisations consulted should not be thrown against us. This is the very reason why we require an experimental period—so that this will no longer be a matter of speculation but we shall be able to see whether the results are beneficial for Scotland and elsewhere.
I am surprised at the number of hon. Members who have rejected some of the considerable advantages. The Scottish Trades Union Congress support this proposal. We cannot shrug off the fact. The Confederation of British Industry, Scottish Section, is also in favour. Views on this matter are not all one way. I have been glad to participate in this debate. I have been glad to listen to points of view which have been put forward. We shall now have to place the accuracy of the speculation against the facts of a three year experiment. I think most hon. Members will recognise that that is the correct intelligent and practical decision for us to take in Scotland as elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I have been watching the anguish of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland during this debate and wondering when it would produce the speech to which we have just listened. I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman. He saw me nodding my head, but that was because I thought his speech fatuous. In case he misunderstands or objects, I must tell him that I did listen to his argument.
He told us that he was not interested in setting forth the argument but only in delineating the different organisations, councils and bodies which have made representations to the Government for and against this Bill. Incidentally, I thought it extraordinary that a Member of the Government should so obviously get different information from that which apparently his colleagues gave to the Committee when they were considering the Bill on the question of which councils opposed or supported the Measure. This is something which the Government should clear up. If we are right in thinking that there is much more than just a rural interest involved in feelings about

the Measure, the Government had better be absolutely accurate about who is and who is not in favour of the Bill.
The other point which the Under-Secretary made was that, after all the talk, the Government have listened to the voice of democracy because they have introduced an experimental period. The Government have introduced experimental measures before. Indeed, the whole history of this Government has been a series of experimental measures. I cannot think of one of them which has worked. What they have hoped for was that the Bill would have been in operation for three years and by that time everybody would have got tired, would have forgotten, and would perhaps have adjusted to the change.
I believe that the opposition to the Bill is sufficiently strong and sensible for us not to accept the bromide of the three-year period. I still have to be convinced of the strength of the Government's argument in support of the Bill. Only one Government back bencher has supported the Bill. His argument was that everybody wanted to be in one time zone and that, after a great deal of coming and going, he had decided that we should get into this time zone because everybody was in it and it was a very good idea for everybody to be in one time zone.
Britain has not been in that time zone for a considerable number of years. I do not discriminate between someone in one time zone and someone in another. I work out which time will be most convenient to get in touch with him and conduct our business in that way. No difficulty arises. Many countries must do so all the time in the normal course of their business. It is perfectly well understood and acceptable. It works well.
Any argument to the contrary must be much more convincing before I would accept that there is anything more in it than what I believe is at the back of this ridiculous Bill, which is the extraordinary desire of the Government to conform with everybody else in every way that they can. They want to make every possible gesture to prove that they are as good Europeans as anybody else and that we can have the same time, as we have the same outward performance in every other way.
This conformity has gone too far. Britain is an individual country. It has its own way of life. I do not think that we should chop and change it to meet the convenience of people in another time zone whose time meridian is East of Berlin. I do not see any rational argument for that, whereas I see great disadvantages in this change for those in my constituency and for people all over Scotland. It is suggested that commerce and industry in general are in favour of the change. I do not think they have pressed the Government hard to make it. They did not have to, anyway. They do not particularly care. They have operated one system. Another system does not make that much difference to them.
However this is a matter of great importance to the people in the North of Scotland, in particular, to people all over Scotland, to people in the North of England, and particularly to those in the rural areas. Their interests have been totally disregarded in favour of this spurious unity and conformity which the Government have sought so misguidedly. That is why I thought that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland exhibited a certain amount of anguish as he sat on the Front Bench, because he must know the reality of the case which has been put to him from these benches and by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) as to what it will mean to rural communities, particularly to our children, to farmers, to the construction industry, and to anyone whose life will be affected by this serious, far-reaching and fundamental change for which the Government have not yet produced any coherent reason beyond the catalogue of people who may or may not be against the Bill. Even that is not clear. I hope that for this reason the Government will not proceed with the Bill.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Hon. and right hon. Members from Scotland are grateful to the Undersecretary of State for taking part in the debate and doing his best, but I must tell him that he did not add anything to the argument which the Government have advanced, an argument which I find totally unacceptable. All the hon. Gentleman could say in support of the Bill on Third Reading, beyond quoting a

representation received from the London Chamber of Commerce, was that it would bring a marginal advantage. No more than that. Throughout the debate, hon. Members have reminded the House again and again that the line taken by Government spokesmen from the beginning of consideration of the Bill has been that the balance is narrow and that the advantage will be minimal.
The disadvantage to Scotland will be far more than marginal. In my view, proper consideration has not been given to the weight of evidence put to the Government from Scotland, not only by hon. Members but by the 91 official organisations which have protested to the Government against the Measure. In his intervention just now, the Under-Secretary of State said that, although 91—or, perhaps, 92—official organisations had made representations, we should not exaggerate their significance because, lurking somewhere in the shadows, there were other official bodies, no doubt, which would have got round to making representations in support of the Bill if they had thought of it. That is the effect of what he said. In reply to a Question the other day, the Secretary of State said that not one official body or organisation had made representations to the Government in support of the Bill.
To be fair, I recognise that the Scottish T.U.C. and the Confederation of British Industry have been called in aid by the Government in support of the Bill. I do not know how enthusiastic their support is. I have respect for their views, but I have no less respect for the views of all the others who have made representations from Scotland against the Bill. I have no less respect for the rural areas which object to the Bill, the rural areas being the ones which will suffer most.
Hon. Members who have supported the Bill have spoken about "some rural areas", the impression conveyed being that only a handful of remote agricultural workers are behaving unreasonably and objecting to the Bill. This is the impression given if the Minister dismisses the opposition as opposition from "some rural areas". In fact, in Scotland alone 14 county councils have taken the trouble to write to the Government saying that they oppose the Bill. So have 45 town councils, the bulk of them from rural areas, because they would feel the effect


most. So have three district councils and five presbyteries of the Church of Scotland. Under the heading of other organisations, massive bodies have opposed the Bill. The Association of Council Councils, the Convention of Royal Burghs, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and other bodies representing enormous sections of public opinion have made representations to the Government against the Bill.
It is no use the Under-Secretary of State proudly crying that the voice of democracy has been heeded and the Government have introduced their experimental period of three years. What he has done is to say that the voice of democracy has not been listened to by the Government. It has been totally ignored.
I must emphasise what has been said, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyle (Mr. Noble) about the impact the Bill will have on agriculture in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman, who is responsible for agriculture in Scotland should pay more regard to the farming voice in Scotland about the cost it will involve for Scottish agriculture and the difficulty for farm workers.
We heard from a number of hon. Members about the problem of children going to school. It is a problem of the rural areas as well as the town. In large parts of Scotland children must go to the road end to wait for the bus to take them to school some miles away. Because of the closure of many rural schools many journeys are becoming much longer. I dread to think of the conditions in which children will now wait at the road end, trembling in the cold and dark as they wait for the bus. They will be going to school and returning in the dark for months every year. Even in Glasgow it will be dark. Sunrise will not occur until nine o'clock or later for three months in the year. The further north one goes the more serious the situation becomes, and sunrise is not daylight.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman has been very good about giving us statistics of the people opposed to the measure. He spoke of five presbyteries, but out of how many are they? He spoke of a number of county councils,

but out of how many? His figures do not give a very clear idea of their proportion that they are of the people concerned.

Mr. MacArthur: If the right hon. Gentleman hears where the presbyteries are, he will understand why their opinion is important. They are the presbyteries of Caithness, Garioch, and Shetland, and the Synod of Ross, Sutherland and Caithness, all in the far North of Scotland, the presbyteries that will be the hardest hit in Britain. There is also the Presbytery of Angus and Mearns. These are the people who will suffer most, and I am very glad that the presbyteries have made representations in this way.
The county councils concerned cover the vast bulk of rural Scotland. There are 14 of them, and the Association of County Councils has made representations to the Government against the Bill on behalf of all the county councils in Scotland. Therefore, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to suggest that this interest is only in a corner of Scotland. It is a deeply felt interest over the whole country.
I was talking about schoolchildren waiting at the road end for the bus, exposed to dangers not only from traffic but from other hazards which we in the House are all too conscious of. The Secretary of State for Scotland has made it clear that education authorities have the power to adjust school hours to conform with the clock. That is so, but in saying that he shows a total disregard for the distortion this would have in family life. The child is not an individual detached from other people, but part of a family with real influence on the conduct of family life and the shaping of the pattern in which people live. It cannot be said that it is easy to change school hours and that that will not have any effect on the family. It will have a very real effect. The Government have totally ignored the convenience of people and the pattern of life.
Their attitude to the authoritative representations against the Bill from all over Scotland has been very much the attitude of a nanny towards a naughty child who dares to question its elders. Throughout the whole affair, their attitude to Scotland has been that nanny knows best. They are doing grave harm


by the way in which Scotland has been treated over this matter. I say this to them with great seriousness. They have given the impression that the Government lack understanding, interest and care in Scotland. This, I believe, is creating a situation which is serious for government.
I am sure that the people of Scotland cannot comprehend why, on an issue of this kind, the Government have put the Whips on. The Scottish Government Whip will have to crack his whip hard in order to force Scottish hon. Members opposite into the Lobby for the Government. If the Government were to remove the Whips, they know that the Bill would be defeated.
If it were defeated, I do not think that the Government would lose face. They might be disappointed to lose the Bill but I do not believe that they would lose standing if the voice of Parliament were seen to be freely and properly expressed in this way. What should concern us more is the gain there would be to the prestige of Parliament in the eyes of the people not only in Scotland but throughout Britain if we were seen, on an issue of this kind, to be expressing our own consciences as dictating the way we vote tonight.

9.21 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): We have had a long debate. At certain stages it seemed to me that I was attending a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee, and I feel such respect for that body that I felt it an honour and privilege to be here. It is significant that almost all the views expressed against the Bill on both sides have come from Scottish hon. Members and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has made it clear that we recognise that there are difficulties in Scotland. It was partly because we recognise these difficulties that we decided to make this an experimental period. It is interesting to note that few hon. Members representing England and Wales have come to state opposition to the Bill.
The basis of the Government's consultations was not in order to oblige any organisation or any of the bodies consulted to take a particular position.

We wanted to know their views, not because we wished to force anything on them, but because we wished to know their views in the interests of the country. We put forward four alternatives as the basis of consultation. First, we should revert to a five and a half month Summer Time; secondly, we should continue with our extended seven month Summer Time; thirdly, we should extend the period still further, perhaps to nine months Summer Time; fourthly, we should introduce Standard Time, Summer Time, throughout the year. Few organisations showed an interest either in the first or the third proposal. The majority fell either with the second or the fourth, and clearly the majority of organisations in the United Kingdom were in favour of introducing Standard Time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) said we had adopted our position on the basis of conjecture and the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) said that hon. Members were giving their personal opinions. In a sense, this is true. We can ask responsible organisations what their assessment is of what would be the consequences and they can reach their conclusions. But we recognise that we cannot estimate, gauge and know what will be the result until we have had an experiment and so we are having an experiment to see just what is the effect.
The Government have no other motive than the welfare of the country as a whole, and that means not only social but also economic welfare. It is not some desire simply for the sake of it to be closer to Europe but if, by having a time common with that of Europe, it brings economic advantages, tourist advantages and travel advantages, then, of course, that is part of the assessment that we must make. This is why we are conducting an experiment.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: What proof is there that there will be any economic advantages or other advantages?

Mr. Ennals: I object to the hon. Gentleman, who has not been here during the debate and did not hear the case put forward at the beginning, asking that question. There is a powerful economic case. Consult the British National Export


Council, which is in favour. Consult the Confederation of British Industry, which has a concern for expanding exports. Consult the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. Consult the bodies concerned with the ports and transport. The British Transport Docks Board, the British Railways Board and all the airline companies are in favour and see advantages for the country in common time.
An argument was advanced on Second Reading and elaborated in Committee concerning the advantages for business concerns of common working time with the other countries of Europe. There will be a great increase in common working time as a result of the Bill.

Mr. Buck: If that be the case, how could the hon. Gentleman have said earlier that the economic advantages were so evenly balanced?

Mr. Ennals: I knew that it would be unwise of me to give way, because I was about to show that, apart from advantages, there are disadvantages. Hon. Members opposite have simply not tried to be fair. They have enumerated all the snags and disadvantages which they could think of while the Government have tried to make an assessment of the economic advantage and disadvantage.
Reference has been made to the building industry for which it is thought there would be disadvantages. The hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East mentioned, rightly, that the National Federation of Building Trade Employers and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors were opposed to this proposal. On the other hand, the problem was considered by the Winter Building Advisory Committee, which was appointed by the Ministry of Public Building and Works the majority of whose members consider that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
I recognise that probably, on balance, unless there are certain adjustments of timing, there will be some disadvantages for the building industry. I recognise that there may need to be some adjustment in timing for agriculture, and particularly for agriculture in Scotland. But, as has been said, the fanner is almost always tied to the sun and the weather. Inevitably he must make adjustments

to his working hours. He is not a 9 to 7 or 8 to 6 man. He must adjust his work to the conditions of the day, the weather and the sun.

Mr. Heffer: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the disadvantages about which he speaks can lead to a fairly steep increase in building costs, which will be a very serious disadvantage for the people of this country?

Mr. Ennals: That is a matter of dispute. It is a view which is held by the National Federation of Building Trade Employers, but the argument made within the Winter Building Advisory Committee was that in some cases more hours would be worked as a result of the adjustment of hours rather than shorter hours, as was suggested by my hon. Friend.
Apart from the economic considerations, there are the social considerations. A good deal of play has been made concerning children. It is true that more children will go to school in the hours of darkness, but, equally, more children will come home in the hours of daylight. If we relate this specifically to Scotland, while it is true that many children will go to school in the dark, more children will return home in daylight in the depths of winter.
In Glasgow, for example, on 26th November, with British Standard Time, the sun will rise at 9.13 a.m. and set at 4.55 p.m. On 24th December the sun will rise at 9.47 a.m. and will set at 4.46 p.m. If the sun is setting at 3.46 p.m. or 3.55 p.m., the likelihood is that children will be returning from school in the dark, whereas, since the sun will be setting at 4.55 p.m. and 4.46 p.m., respectively, in November and December, there will be more hours of daylight for returning home from school. Most teaching organisations in England are in favour of this Measure, and are of the opinion that there is less danger to a child going to school in the morning in darkness than coming back in the evening in darkness because the child goes more directly to school, and also because there is less playing, less danger of what my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie referred to, the danger of children being abducted. There is much less danger of this in the early hours of the morning than in the afternoon.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn rose—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. Bruce-Gardyne rose—

Mr. Ennals: I have given way many times and we have had a long debate.
There are two other points, one is to do with road accidents. I have said the Road Research Laboratory has reached the conclusion that there would be an advantage, from the point of view of reduction of accidents, serious and fatal, if the change were made. The Laboratory has calculated that if British Standard Time had been in force in 1964 there would have been about 586 extra fatal and serious casualties on weekday working mornings and about 870 fewer fatal and serious accidents in the evenings. This gives an estimated saving of 290 fatal and serious casualties during the period not at present subject to British Standard Time. A net saving of about 100 fatal and serious casualties would similarly have arisen at the weekend. That means a total net saving of about 290 fatal and serious casualties, which is under 0·4 per cent. of the annual total.

This is an estimate of the Road Research Laboratory, and we will not know whether these are savings until we have the experimental period to which the Government are committed.

There are advantages and disadvantages. It is clear, on the basis of the assessments that have been made by the Government, not just on the basis of estimates and guesses, but of responsible opinion, that it would be to the advantage of the country to have this experiment. We propose therefore to have it. If it is clear that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, we will take action. There is no earthly reason why we should wish to continue the system if it will not be to the clear advantage, economically and socially of the country.

Mr. Donald Chapman: Mr. Donald Chapman (Birmingham, Northfield) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 98.

Division No. 276.]
AYES
[9.33 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McBride, Neil


Archer, Peter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Foley, Maurice
Maclennan, Robert


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Beaney, Alan
Fowler, Gerry
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Binns, John
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Blackburn, F.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gregory, Arnold
Manuel, Archie


Booth, Albert
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Marquand, David


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, J. J.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Hannan, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cant, R. B.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Chapman, Donald
Haseldine, Norman
Neal, Harold


Coe, Denis
Hazell, Bert
Newens, Stan


Concannon, J. D.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Conlan, Bernard
Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Gordon


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, Albert E.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)
Hoy, James
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Huckfield, Leslie
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hunter, Adam
Park, Trevor


Delargy, Hugh
Hynd, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dempsey, James
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dewar Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dobson, Ray
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman


Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Eadie, Alex
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kelley, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


Ellis, John
Lawson, George
Rankin, John


English, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ennals, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Ensor, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robinson, W. O, J. (Walth'stow, E)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rose, Paul


Fernyhough, E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William




Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'e'tle-u-Tyne)
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Silverman, Julius
Watkins, David (Consett)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Slater, Joseph
Whitaker, Ben
Woof, Robert


Snow, Julian
Whitlock, William



Spriggs, Leslie
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mr. Harry Gourlay and


Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gresham Cooke, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Black, Sir Cyril
Grieve, Percy
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Body, Richard
Gurden, Harold
Percival, Ian


Braine, Bernard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pym, Francis


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, J. E. B.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Russell, Sir Ronald


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Sharples, Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hunt, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Corfield, F. V.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Stainton, Keith


Currie, G. B. H.
Kershaw, Anthony
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kirk, Peter
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lubbock, Eric
Ward, Dame Irene


Emery, Peter
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Weatherill, Bernard


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Maude, Angus
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Eyre, Reginald
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Foster, Sir John
More, Jasper
Woodnutt, Mark


Gibson-Watt, David
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Ronald Bell and


Grant-Ferris, R.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. John Brewis.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 83.

Division No. 277.]
AYES
[9.42 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hooley, Frank


Archer, Peter
Eadie, Alex
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Armstrong, Ernest
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ellis, John
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Beaney, Alan
Emery, Peter
Hoy, James


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
English, Michael
Huckfield, Leslie


Binns, John
Ennals, David
Hunter, Adam


Blackburn, F.
Ensor, David
Hynd, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Booth, Albert
Fernyhough, E.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Foley, Maurice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Forrester John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Foster, Sir John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Chapman, Donald
Fowler, Gerry
Kelley, Richard


Coe, Denis
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lane, David


Conlan, Bernard
Gourlay, Harry
Lawson, George


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Crouch, David
Gregory, Arnold
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lomas, Kenneth


Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lubbock, Eric


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford E.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McBride, Neil


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hannan, William
McGuire, Michael


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Harper, Joseph
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Delargy, Hugh
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Dewar, Donald
Haseldine, Norman
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Doig, Peter
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Manuel, Archie




Marquand, David
Pavitt, Laurence
Thomson, Rt. tin. George


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Pentland, Norman
Tilney, John


Mendelson, J. J.
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Millan, Bruce
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Varley, Eric G.


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Walter, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Price, William (Rugby)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Neal, Harold
Rankin, John
Whitaker, Ben


Newens, Stan
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitlock, William


Noel-Bakcr, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Wilkins, W. A.


Oakes, Cordon
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ogden, Eric
Rose, Paul
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


O'Malley, Brian
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Oram, Albert E.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Winstanley Dr. M. P.


Orbach, Maurice
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Silverman, Julius
Woof, Robert


Palmer, Arthur
Slater, Joseph



Park, Trevor
Snow, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Alan Fitch and




Mr. J. D. Concannon.




NOES


Black, Sir Cyril
Grieve, Percy
Percival, Ian


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Body, Richard
Gurden, Harold
Pym, Francis


Braine, Bernard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hill, J. E. B.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Sharples, Richard


Campbell, B. (Oldham, West)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkln, Patrick (Woodford)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Clegg, Walter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Speed, Keith


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Currie, G. B. H.
Kirk, Peter
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Ward, Dame Irene


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley
Weatherill, Bernard


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Maude, Angus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fortescue, Tim
More, Jasper
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gibson-Watt, David
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Woodnutt, Mark


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Younger, Hn. George


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Murton, Oscar



Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Ronald Bell and


Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Mr. John Brewis.


Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 20, line 5, agreed to.

Lords Amendment in page 20, line 5, leave out Clause 25, the next Amendment, agreed to.

9.52 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I beg to move, instead of Clause 25, left out of the Bill, to insert after Clause 58, the following Clause:

Extension of power of user by Crown of patented invention to user for certain health services

(1) The powers exercisable in relation to a patented invention under section 46 of the Patents Act 1949 by a government department or a person authorised by a government department shall include power to make, use, exercise and vend the invention for the production or supply of drugs and medicines required for the provision of pharmaceutical services, general medical services or general dental services, and prescribed for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State acting jointly; and any reference in that section or in section 47 or 48 of the Patents Act 1949 to the services of the Crown shall be construed accordingly.

(2) In the foregoing subsection references to pharmaceutical services, general medical services and general dental services shall be construed as referring to services of those respective kinds under Part IV of the National Health Service Act 1946, Part IV of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 or the corresponding provisions of the law in force in Northern Ireland or the Isle of Man.

(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) above to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(4) This section shall extend to the Isle of Man.

Mr. Speaker: May I advise the House? I am not calling the new Clause in the names of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) and others of his hon. Friends, entitled "Application of Section 32(3) of the Patents Act, 1949", which they would have inserted in place of Clause 25 and instead of the Minister's new Clause. However, the Opposition Clause may be discussed in this debate.

Mr. Robinson: The new Clause reinstates in principle Clause 25 which

was inserted in Committee and deleted on Report in another place. The Clause added in Committee, although substantially redrafted, had broadly the same effect as the new Clause which this House added on Report here. The effect of both the Clauses moved in each House and the one which we are now discussing is, therefore, similar, namely, to extend to the general medical and pharmaceutical services the provisions relating to Crown use of patented drugs and medicines which, under Section 46 of the Patents Act, 1949, already exist in respect of the hospital services. There is, however, apart from extensions to cover Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, one change of substance in the Clause which I have moved compared with the Clause deleted on Report in another place. I will refer to it in a moment or two.
May I first briefly repeat the reasons why I advised the House to accept in principle the Clause as originally moved in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson)? First, there is a need for an effective and an expeditious procedure of last resort to deal with the exceptional case in which a pharmaceutical firm insists on unreasonable prices and in which price control is not effective. Secondly, I pointed out to the House that normal competitive conditions do not exist for drugs supplied for what are called Part IV services, because the general practitioner prescribes what he considers to be in the interest of the patient, the patient receives the benefit of the drug and Ministers are responsible through executive councils for paying the chemist for supplying the drug. The duty to ensure that the proper value is obtained for the expenditure of public funds thus rests mainly on the Minister, who must be able to ensure that the prices are not unreasonable. The Clause did not involve any fundamental change in the patent law, since it applied existing provisions, with a technical modification relating to vending to a service which in vital respects is similar to the hospital service, to which those provisions already apply and which is paid for out of the same Exchequer fund.
The Sainsbury Committee considered the matter, and they were in a uniquely strong position to judge the effect of such


a change on the industry. They concluded that, unlike the position in other patent issues which they discussed and recommended should be considered by the Banks Committee, this change should be implemented in advance of the review by that Committee.
Perhaps I may also repeat the assurance which I gave on Report and which was repeated on my behalf by Government spokesmen in another place—that there is no intention of using this provision in anyway other than that envisaged by the Sainsbury Committee, namely, as a procedure of last resort in the exceptional case in which, after fair and detailed negotiations, a patentee insists on prices which the Minister cannot possibly accept as reasonable. There is no question that the legitimate interests of the industry would be prejudiced, for all Governments will always have an interest in a strong pharmaceutical industry in this country.
In the course of debates in another place, some pretty extravagant speeches were made, mainly by noble Lords who were good enough to declare their financial interest as chairmen or directors of this or that pharmaceutical manufacturing company. Although the industry quite naturally dislikes any erosion of its patent rights and has always made that clear to me, I find it hard to believe that the industry in general shares the exaggerated fears which were expressed in another place. I believe that the industry sees this Clause, as I do, as one element in a set of proposals which I recently explained to the House and which will, beyond dispute, provide a moderate but comprehensive settlement of these outstanding issues, a settlement which is fair both to the industry and to the taxpayer.
The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) suggests, as an alternative, that use might be made of Section 32(3) of the Patents Act, which enables a Government Department to apply for revocation of a payment if a product is not made available on reasonable—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords Amendments stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL

Lords Amendments further considered.

Mr. Robinson: —on reasonable terms for the services of the Crown. The difficulties for the Government arising in this context would be formidable, since the consequences for the firm are much more serious and the courts might apply even stricter criteria before granting an application.
This remedy, involving revocation of the patent is more drastic than the one I propose. Anyone who was innocent of the subtleties of hon. Gentlemen opposite might have been surprised that they had tabled this as a method of procedure that they appeared to prefer. But as the House should appreciate, the matter does not end there. There is the question of delay. I am told that the delay could take anything up to five years before a decision was reached. Of course, in extreme cases this remedy might be appropriate, but even in such a case it would be right also to use Section 46 to safeguard the interests of the Exchequer before a Section 32 decision could be announced.

Mr. Brewis: Would it not be possible to use the Section 46 procedure while the delay was going on, the delay of what the right hon. Gentleman considers might be of five years' duration, which I think is an over estimate?

Mr. Robinson: If we adopted the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends it would have to be not a substitute but an additional provision, and I do not think that that is what we wanted. I must advise the House that the Opposition Amendment would in no way provide a satisfactory alternative to the Government's proposal.
I said that there was one modification of substance between this new Clause and the one rejected by the Lords. Although I have said that there will be no


sudden or arbitrary use of this power and that it is essentially one of last resort, I have looked round for a practical way of reinforcing this assurance. In pursuance of this, I have in this new draft of the Clause limited the use of Section 46 for the purposes of the services covered by the Clause to drugs and medicines prescribed by regulations. This provision will at least give not only due warning should it ever be necessary to invoke these powers, but give Parliament an opportunity of discussing and approving their exercise in a particular case.
This concession will, I hope, be seen by hon. Gentlemen opposite, by another place and by the industry as evidence of our intention to make use of this power only if we have to, responsibly and with due opportunity for Parliamentary debate.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Before Clause 25 was removed by another place, when it was first introduced into the Bill very late in the proceedings on Report, my hon. Friends objected in principle to what the Clause proposed to do, to the procedure in that it anticipated the Banks Report, and to the fact that it sought to put in medical legislation what should be in patent legislation. We also objected to the manner in which it was sneaked into the Bill at the last minute, not so much, in our view, because the Minister needed the Clause as because he required, so to speak, the jam to give his hon. Friends to take away the taste of the bitter pills which he had forced them to swallow on other matters. These objections still stand. We are still convinced that this would be a better Bill without any of the three Clauses that have been put in from time to time. I will not repeat the arguments, though some of my hon. Friends may later seek to develop them—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Clause 25 is now out of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman can now talk only about the two Clauses we are discussing.

Mr. Macmillan: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to the Clause that we say should come after Clause 58. We would rather not have this present Clause or our Clause, but as it is obvious that as a result of the Government's majority we are to have some

Clause to this effect we would prefer to have ours, which we consider is not open to the same objection as the other from the point of view of the country, the industry or, indeed, the Ministry itself.
I hope that I shall not be out of order if I remind the House that the whole purpose of the protection of a process by patent is to encourage technical progress, to help research and development, to encourage disclosure, to reward invention and to encourage investment. I remind the Minister that this sort of protection which, admittedly, only in some cases does he seek to run down, is needed specially for innovating industry, and the results that have been seen in other countries which do not have this protection justify its existence in our pharmaceutical industry.
Secondly, I remind the House that the Section 46 powers which the Minister is invoking were originally for defence, and were extended once only in the past to apply to questions of costs. I think that the Minister is now stretching the intention of the original Act beyond both common sense and common justice. It is no good his saying that this is a logical extension of a right already enjoyed. That is an argument that could be used to justify almost anything. A parent has the right to punish his children, and it could be said to be a logical extension of that right to flog them unmercifully. I have no doubt that it would be possible to justify filibustering on the ground that it is a logical extension of an hon. Member's right to speak in this House.
In this procedure the Minister is introducing the concept of administrative right rather than that of invoking the law against any pharmaceutical firm that might, for its private profit, be seeking to exploit the Health Service. In so doing, he is to some extent frustrating the whole purpose of patent legislation. I do not think that what he is doing is necessary for the good of the Health Service. Some of the justification that was put forward earlier in this House and in another place seemed to me to be very exaggerated and to stretch the bounds of probability rather too far. However, again, these matters will be dealt with by some of my hon. Friends.
In suggesting that our wording is more suitable, more sensible and more just than that which the Minister has chosen,


we are going along with him further than we did before in assuming that there is a need for what he has called an expeditious effective measure of last resort, or a long stop. The Minister has actually chosen, as he himself has said, the weaker of the two possible sanctions offered on the Notice Paper. He has chosen the least effective of the two deterrents, and the one that is likely to bring its use most into political dispute when he, or his successors, happen to use it.
The reason he has given, or which has been given in another place and elsewhere on his behalf, is that the stick suggested is too big but it is acceptable to the industry which it is alleged it will damage. It is said that the delay implicit in judicial procedure is necessarily going to make this ineffective. It is said that the judge might turn the Ministry down. What this means—the House must realise this when we vote on this issue—is that the Minister is determined to have the power to impose lower prices for political reasons regardless of whether these are fair or reasonable and he is determined to keep an impartial consideration out of the whole question.
His own procedures and committees and the Medicine Commission he has always quoted as being independent, would provide an independent tribunal. The courts certainly are an independent tribunal, but he has chosen to go for a method in which the only considerations which need be taken into account are political. Of course the Minister, as usual in all these arguments we have had on this and other legislation, has justified the powers that the Bill would give him by saying that he will never use them except in cases of emergency as the longstop he has described.
There is one point he made which has to be answered. It is that the procedure of the courts is likely to be more long delayed than that of the somewhat more arbitrary procedure he suggests. Is he not actually saying that justice through the law is apt to be slower than the arbitrary political decision of Ministers? This is an argument that the procedure we have suggested should be turned down without further thought. It is a much stronger deterrent. The Minister said that it is to be used only if there is disagreement on the voluntary system. Surely the prospect not only

of having this particular derogation made to losing the patent rights altogether is a far stronger deterrent, a far stronger incentive to reaching agreement.
The effect in the end on prices and costs, should it be necessary to use this procedure and should the courts rule in the Minister's favour, would be greater than he suggests. To match the phraseology of Sainsbury and the arguments put up in another place, we have used the word "reasonable" in the same context as it was there used. It is fair to say that our wording is in itself more reasonable than the Minister's. I hope that the House will agree with this when we press this matter to a Division, as we fully intend to do.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: My right hon. Friend the Minister stands literally half way between myself and the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) as he frequently has done in Committee on this Bill and many others. Unlike the hon. Member for Farnham I think my right hon. Friend has gone a little too far to meet their Lordships' wishes. I prefer the original Clause we deleted by accepting the Lords' Amendment. Not only the noble Lords but the hon. Member protest far too much on this, as though some great innovation, some enormous weapon, a sledge hammer to crack a peanut, has been put forward by the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend. A similar provision prevails in the hospital service, where the path was charted by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) when he was Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman is hardly the most revolutionary Member of the House. By using that provision we were able to save a tremendous amount of money.
10.15 p.m.
The Clause merely seeks to extend a reserve power in the same degree as has already been used by the Conservative Administration before us. From reading the Press reports shortly after this House dared to adopt the Clause which their Lordships have deleted, from reading the correspondence in The Times from the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, and from reading speeches made in the other place, one would have thought that the revolution would be here at any minute and


that the wicked Socialists intended to nationalise the industry by means of some hidden Clause in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Farnham has deployed a rational case, which I accept—the need to protect patents. However, over the whole period when a similar provision has operated in the hospital service there have been only five cases. When the industry thinks that there is anything which, in the bargaining process, will add to the Government's power to drive an effective bargain, the whole of the weight of the drugs lobby, which is now one of the most powerful lobbies in the House, is brought to bear so that the industry's profit shall be protected and, if possible, the Minister's hands tied behind him when he goes into negotiations.
The Minister made it quite clear on 1st April, when he succumbed to pressures, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) and I played our part, and included the Clause which is now deleted, that it would be only a reserve power in the usual process which is now well worn. I sometimes wonder whether my right hon. Friend does not always negotiate with the industry before he discusses matters with his hon. Friends when he is putting forward Clauses of this kind.
The point which I am querying is the provision in the Clause—it was not in the Clause which has been deleted—about having a Statutory Instrument each

time my right hon. Friend wishes to use the powers that the new Clause will give him. Does this mean that for each separate negotiation, for each separate drug, there will have to be a separate Statutory Instrument? Or does it mean that in a series of negotiations in which my right hon. Friend can foresee himself getting into difficulty he can have an omnibus Statutory Instrument to cover a similar number of drugs or to enable him, over a whole range of negotiations with the industry, to take powers so that the negotiations can be brought to a successful conclusion?
This is a mild Clause, milder than that which has been deleted. I think that it is the least that the Minister can put forward. I therefore hope that it will be accepted. The alternative put forward by the hon. Member for Farnham is one which he says that the industry is prepared to accept. Of course the industry is prepared to accept it, because it takes power from the Minister and gives the industry a little more. The hon. Gentleman has argued that in many ways it would be stronger, but he knows full well that it is very unlikely that the power contained in it would be effectively deployed. It looks bigger, but in fact it is smaller because of the clumsy way in which it would have to be used.
I am not in full support of my right hon. Friend, but I am 95 per cent. behind him. I would have preferred not to have had the Statutory Instrument provision, but if that is the concession he thinks that he must make to the tremendous pressure to which he has been subjected I hope that the House will accept the Clause.

Mr. David Crouch: The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) spoke of the Minister requiring the usual power and of a reserve process. I see in the new Clause, whichever number it be given, much more than the usual power and much more than just a reserve process.
I am concerned that, after a late sitting last night and this morning, I shall have to speak not at length but in some detail now because I feel strongly about the new power which the Minister is taking to himself in a matter which does not require such arbitrary power.
There have been references to the letter from Lord Shawcross which appeared in The Times of Friday, 24th May. I shall read an extract from it:
This enables the Government, if its negotiations with the manufacturer on the price of some particular medical product to be supplied to the National Health Service are not to its liking, by executive decision without the slightest safeguard of legal process to override the patent, and, without more ado, to obtain supplies elsewhere, probably from abroad.
Those are words of wisdom and not really of contention from a man sensible to the problems facing the Minister, facing society and facing the industry.

Mr. K. Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman go on to explain that, in those circumstances, there would then be royalties payable which, in the event of failure to agree between the Government Department and the manufacturer, would be settled by the courts? It is nothing like the arbitrary procedure which the hon. Gentleman and Lord Shawcross make it out to be, and, furthermore, it has been in existence since 1949 for the whole of the hospital service.

Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the Minister for that interjection. It underlines what I seek to prove, namely, that the Minister is a reasonable man and has been a reasonable man in office for some years, but he is tonight presenting to the House a Clause which is not reasonable. He has spoken in reasonable fashion, and I do not object to anything which he has said, but I am most concerned about the present move which he and the Government are making.
It all began with the Sainsbury Report. In paragraph 11, page 2, Sainsbury recommended:
That, since the negotiation of prices may sometimes fail to result in agreement, a procedure must be available to which Ministers may have recourse; and that Ministers should consider amendment of the National Health Service Acts to bring the General Medical and Pharmaceutical Service within the definition of 'sevices to the Crown' for the purposes of Section 46 of the Patents Act, 1949.
It began with Sainsbury and a responsible recommendation at the beginning of its Report in regard to what the Committee had found to be a need. In other words, Sainsbury found a need to invoke Section 46 of the Patents Act in relation to the whole of the medical services. Sainsbury is clear on two points, that there must first be seen to be a failure of negotiation between the Ministry and the pharmaceutical industry, and then, if there is such a failure, the Minister must have recourse to some instrument in order to achieve action, action, that is—I agree with what was said earlier—to produce a speedy result. Section 46 of the Patents Act would then be invoked. Why? There would be no consideration by the Ministry, an independent jury, arbitration or a tribunal. Why should we, tired as we may be, have to consider granting the Government arbitrary power and the power of executive decision? Should not we be considering arbitration, jury decision or decision by tribunal?
Much is at stake. The Bill has been before the House and another place for some weeks and months. I shall not weary the House with an argument for the pharmaceutical industry, in which I have no interest, and the case about prices, profits and expenditure on research. Rather, I seek to understand the law and the protection of the individual and individuals acting as corporations and companies serving the individual.
I return to Sainsbury, as I shall more than once tonight. Paragraph 329 of the Report says:
Section 46 is a selective instrument; it has been used, and when it was used it afforded a clear and creditable action of resort by the Ministry following upon unsatisfactory negotiations.
It is about the whole question of when Section 46 should be used that I wish to


speak. Paragraph 331 of the Report says:
We are aware of the feeling that the use of Section 46 has aroused in certain sectors of the industry, but we do not think the industry's legitimate interests would be prejudiced if the section were used judiciously only as a procedure of resort following total deadlock after full negotiations. We do not believe that if the system of negotiation we recommend is accepted the need to resort to Section 46 is likely to arise again.
Yet it has arisen again tonight—

Mr. K. Robinson: Resort is not being made to Section 46 tonight. The powers are being put into legislation.

Mr. Crouch: The right hon. Gentleman might almost be a lawyer, the way he trips me up. I am glad to see the Attorney-General here to advise us. I shall not weary the right hon. and learned Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.

Mr. Crouch: I accept that, Mr. Speaker. The new Clause is not a sop to Sainsbury, but it must be a sop to someone because otherwise I cannot see why it is here. It is highly irresponsible that we should be debating it tonight. Sainsbury proposed a pricing system based on consultation and understanding. Throughout the whole of the Report we find the phrase, "reasonable approach of the industry". Paragraph 295 of the Report says:
To perform their work effectively, the Ministry must have access to the books and premises of pharmaceutical manufacturers. In transactions of the scale involved this seems to us entirely reasonable; and we should expect the industry to co-operate, as do other industries with extensive Government contracts. If any firm were to raise difficulties which could not be resolved by other means it would be appropriate for Ministers to consider the use of their compulsory powers to require disclosure".
I entirely agree with that sentiment. I believe that the whole industry has agreed with such a statement in the negotiations with this all-commanding and controlling industry. I come back to the Sainsbury Report, because so much depends on it. In paragraph 320 it said:
The pricing arrangements we have recommended and thee negotiations with individual

firms that are involved should lead to an increased understanding by the Ministry of Health of the operations of the firms in the industry and of the way in which prices are determined. We should expect negotiations on the basis proposed to lead to rapid agreement in most cases.
Yet tonight we are considering this blunt instrument which the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to accept, although throughout the Sainsbury Report, on which I thought he had based his judgment for this Clause, there is constant repetition of the statement that there is no need for such a blunt instrument and that Sainsbury would expect that the negotiations would lead to a solution.
So far so good. But still no case has been made out for this new Clause. No case was made for it on Second Reading. The Clause eventually emerged in another place as Clause 25. Now it re-emerges with a number unknown but to follow Clause 58.
I have not heard a convincing argument which makes me believe that the right hon. Gentleman, as a reasonable man, thinks that this is a necessary Clause and that it is necessary for the Government to have this arbitrary power. I believe that he would not want to use such executive action and arbitrary powers. But during the Report stage of the Bill in another place, Lord Sainsbury decided that there was a place for a Clause such as this—Clause 25 as it then was. He said:
… I am still brought up against the problem of negotiations between the Departments of Health and the pharmaceutical industry—or, rather, the particular firm. In the past we have been faced with a deadlock. Under the voluntary price regulations scheme, after lengthy negotiations, we have been faced with deadlock; and we were convinced that the Ministry needed a weapon of last resort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 27th May, 1968; Vol. 292, c. 978.]
I refer to this because I believe that Lord Sainsbury's reference in such a manner to the then Clause 25 is the same basis for this new Clause. I oppose it most strongly. The noble Lord spoke of a deadlock. I do not believe such a power as this should be given to the Minister. I wanted to satisfy myself on this question of deadlock because it occurs in the Sainsbury Report and in Lord Sainsbury's speech and in the debates on the Bill. I made some investigations of my own and I have been to


one of the principal pharmaceutical companies. I looked at its files of correspondence of dealings with the Ministry some years ago.
I have been to Pfizer and studied its files. I have been unable to find one shred of evidence of a deadlock having arisen in 1961, when Section 46 of the Patents Act was originally applied by the then Minister. I know that it was not the only firm to whom the Minister applied the Section at that time. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether he can cite one other example of a breakdown in negotiations which led ultimately to a deadlock, and the application of Section 46.
I have unearthed a remarkable story from the files. It starts on 1st January, 1961, when the new version of the voluntary price regulation scheme came into effect, having been agreed between the Ministry and the pharmaceutical industry. On 2nd January the Ministry of Health wrote and asked Pfizer to negotiate the price of tetracycline, suggesting a meeting. On 16th January the meeting took place, and Pfizer then promised the Ministry information on its marketing of tetracycline in world markets, and all its price details. On 23rd January this information was submitted in writing, in a long detailed letter containing information covering nine countries and ten competitors. On 26th January the Ministry thanked Pfizer for this and said that it was "studying with interest the information on prices."
On 31st January a second meeting took place. [Interruption.] I do not wish to make a tedium of this, but it is extremely important background to why we are here tonight. On 31st January Pfizer promised, at that meeting, details of profits for 1959–60. It undertook to let the Minister have those figures within eight weeks after the completion of its 1960 accounts, after 31st March, 1961. On 7th May the Minister announced the decision to apply Section 46 of the Patents Act—before the expiry of the agreed eight-week period after the completion of the 1960 accounts. Was this a deadlock?

Mr. K. Robinson: I am not trying to defend the actions of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). It is not for me to do so. It is

interesting for the House to listen to this attack on the right hon. Gentleman. What I was doing was giving assurances, for myself, of what I think future Ministers would do if this power was in their hands.

Mr. Crouch: Again I can find no fault with the Minister's intervention. I am going through a history, and of course there are gloomy events which would prompt him to get to his feet. On 18th May, having applied Section 46, the Ministry wrote to Pfizer concerning tenders to be invited for certain pharmaceutical and patented drugs. On 27th June Pfizer presented to the Board of Trade accountant, acting for the Ministry of Health, detailed schedules with profits for 1959 and 1960. I am seeking to show that even at this stage of difficulty and disagreement, there was consultation and negotiation, between the Minister and the supplier of pharmaceutical products.

Mr. Pavitt: We are grateful to the hon. Member for his chronological study. Will he also take note of the fact that the Report of the Civil Appropriations Committee said that in dealings with Company A and Company B negotiations went on for years, and although no deadlock took place no progress was made between 1961 and 1966, and that it was only after that that £250,000 was saved in the following five years?

Mr. Crouch: I will certainly take note of that.
On 14th July, 1961, the Board of Trade wrote to Pfizer asking certain questions about the figures that it had received. I have the letter here. It was a pleasant, friendly, and even encouraging letter. The writer, the Board of Trade Accountant, said that he would be pleased to visit Pfizer's head office at Sandwich.
On 18th August, 1961, Pfizer replied fully in a five page letter, taking up the question of the proposed meeting that had been suggested by the Board of Trade to discuss Pfizer's figures, and offered to do so. No meeting ever took place, no negotiations were ever commenced, and no reply has ever been received by Pfizer to its letter, which was the result of extensive accounting research.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not know whether the Minister can help me. It is not apparent to me how the hon. Member's observations are relevant to the Amendment that we are discussing.

Mr. K. Robinson: I share your difficulty here, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is interesting history, but it bears no relation to what will happen under this power, which was not in existence at the time that these events took place.

Mr. Crouch: I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is very relevant to what we are discussing tonight, and I will say why. I have, unfortunately, had to give a chronological report of letters that I have seen on the file between a pharmaceutical firm and the Ministry of Health, which show that there was no—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt that this is very interesting background, but it does not seem to be relevant to the Amendment we are discussing. I would remind the House that we are discussing Lords Amendments, and the scope of debate on Lords Amendments is fairly limited. I do not think that the hon. Member should pursue this historical background.

Mr. Crouch: I accept your direction in this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have given this list of events to show that there was no evidence of a deadlock. In fact a deadlock never arose. Yet when Lord Sainsbury introduced and blessed in another place a Clause similar to this, Clause 25, it was voted out. Lord Sainsbury used as the blessing for such an Amendment being discussed the question that a deadlock had been reached between a certain pharmaceutical firm and the Ministry. All this evidence, which I consider most important, shows that no deadlock had ever arisen, and I challenge the Minister to say whether any deadlock has ever been reached with any pharmaceutical firm in any negotiations.
Lord Sainsbury, in his report, has continually shown that he did not believe that there was anything but a reasonable attitude by the pharmaceutical firms in their approach and discussions with the Ministry. Misunderstanding there may have been, but never deadlock. Yet we

are asked to accept deadlock in negotiations as the reason for arbitrary executive action by the Ministry to be used at the Minister's discretion. I maintain that deadlock never obtained.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whether deadlock did or did not take place at some earlier date in some earlier dispute does not seem to me to be relevant to the discussion about the appropriateness of a new Clause which does not even mention deadlock.

Mr. Crouch: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would not seek to weary you by getting you on your feet at all. Therefore, I must accept what you say. I still feel that there is evidence, which I have here and about which the House should know, which is relevant to what we are discussing, but I will not move away from the instruction which you have given me. However, this is a matter which distresses me considerably, because I believe that the Ministry is trying to write something on the Statute Book which recent history has shown not to be necessary.
10.45 p.m.
I challenge the Minister to say whether, in his Ministry's files, he can find any evidence of deadlock, or failure or breakdown of negotiations with any of the companies with which it was negotiating on prices under the voluntary price regulation scheme which makes him feel that there is a need for this House even to consider this arbitrary and executive action.
What I have recounted happened a long time ago, and it is not my purpose to cry over spilled milk. The House has been very tolerant with me tonight. The House is no doubt weary, and I am grateful for the sympathetic attitude which has been shown to me. My purpose has been, and is, to put a record straight, a record that there was something wrong, that deadlock was reached. There was never any deadlock.
I maintain that this manufacturer adopted a reasonable attitude, that he was willing, as Lord Sainsbury subsequently reported, to open his books to the Ministry and to the Board of Trade's accountants, that he was willing to agree his prices under the voluntary price regulation scheme. There was a breakdown


in negotiations because the Ministry caused such a breakdown by failing to hold a proposed meeting, by failing to answer correspondence, and the Minister can check his files to find that out, but there was never any question of a deadlock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member again, but this seems to me to be not only irrelevant but tedious repetition, and I must ask the hon. Member to desist from this sort of argument.

Mr. Crouch: Mr. Deputy Speaker, such strong words require me to look very carefully at my notes and to desist from quoting as much as I think the House is entitled to hear. I shall discard some of my notes, but I think that the House will be worried if it does not hear what they contain.
I suggest that there is no evidence anywhere to show this condition of deadlock—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must order the hon. Member to discontinue his speech and resume his seat.

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) in what he said. I think that it would be wrong to do so, because the action of which he is complaining was taken by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and I have not given him notice of my intention to attack his action. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to do so?
When I moved a new Clause embracing the principle of the new Clause which my right hon. Friend has now moved, I thought it a very modest and reasonable proposal, and I still do. I was, therefore, like my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), a little surprised at the reaction to it in the correspondence columns of The Times, and the misrepresentation, too, of the object of the Clause, and more particularly was I surprised at the rejection of the principle of it in another place. That is why I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend move the new Clause to restore the principle which was removed from the Bill.
I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West that

what had hitherto, and under a Conservative Government, been right under patent law to do by executive action should now be thought necessary to do by regulation. Because of what I have heard, I think that we ought to try to get back to what the Clause is about, and what it seeks to do. I am not an expert on patent law—in fact I am very much of a tyro—but as far as I have been able to read it cannot be said that the Clause is aiming to make new law.
Section 46 of the Patents Act already lays down and repeats the provisions of previous Patents Acts that the Crown or any Government Department has an inherent right to make use, free from any patent restrictions, of any patented invention in the services of the Crown. I would remind the hon. Member for Canterbury that the Clause does not make it obligatory or a condition precedent that any negotiations should first take place with the Ministry. It gives the Minister and the Government Department the right to invoke the provisions of Section 46 and at once to use a patented invention without any negotiations having been undertaken in any respect. So, strictly, there can be no complaint—although my right hon. Friend, being the reasonable man that he is, does not propose to invoke the law as it is and as it has been for a long time.
My right hon. Friend has reminded us that it was a Conservative Minister of Health who, without any prior approval from Parliament, sought to, and did, by executive action, invoke the provisions of this Section. It was not mentioned that his right to do so was upheld at law in an action taken against the Minister by Pfizer's. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) said that the purposes of the Section in the Patents Act was to enable the Government to use patented inventions for the defence of the country. That might have been the original intention, but hon. Members opposite should bring themselves up to date in their thinking, as did the Court of Appeal.
I want to read an extract from the judgment of one of our judges in a patents case. He said:
I cannot think that according to the ordinary sense of language judged by the ideas and conditions of the present day and age that a patented process is not used 'for'


the services of the Crown if it is used by a department of government for the fulfilment of the duties laid on the government by the legislation creating and regulating the Ministry of Health; or that the promotion of the health of the people of this country is in this respect capably distinguished from the provision of their protection against the hazards of war by the maintenance of the Crown's armed services.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend is up to date in his thinking.
The question at issue is not whether the law allows it; it does. The only question is whether or not one action is in the service of the Crown. The argument was canvassed at great length as to whether there could be said to be any difference between giving a drug to a patient in hospital and giving the same drug to him in his own home, via his family doctor. It cannot be argued that there is any difference in the service of the Crown in that respect.
It was that anomaly to which the Sainsbury Committee drew attention. It was used by one of the judges in the case to which I have referred. It has been argued that this is an infringement of the basic rights of the pharmaceutical industry and that it is wrong to take this action. I remind the House that the Patents Act provides that if the Government take the action which the law permits the pharmaceutical industry has abundant remedy in applying to the court to settle the terms which the Government can use any patented article.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Then why have patents at all?

Mr. Robinson: I did not write the Patents Act. I am only repeating what it says. The Government may grant a monopoly and decide that a patent shall enure to the benefit of an industry. If the Government can do that, why should they not legitimately, for their own purpose, take it away? This is not a hardship on the pharmaceutical industry because the courts will determine, in the absence of an agreement with the Treasury, the price to be paid, and, if necessary, there can be resort to arbitration.
Two methods are proposed, one by my right hon. Friend and the other in (he Amendment of the Opposition, which

has not been moved. May I briefly draw attention to the relative merits of the two proposals? My right hon. Friend said that, despite what the law will permit him to do, he will not use this power save as a last resort if and when negotiations break down and, secondly, that he will put regulations before the House, subject to annulment, before he invokes this power. Hitherto, under existing patent law, only the courts could prevent this power from being invoked by the Government. Even though the Government would have the use of this drug, the remaining provisions of the Patents Act would still apply—that agreed reasonable terms must be fixed or settled by arbitration. Is that not an eminently reasonable approach to the problem, bearing in mind, as we must, the very considerable amount of public expenditure involved in the exercise of these powers?
In their approach, the Opposition for the first time are prepared to concede that the use of a drug for the family doctor or the family dentist service could be a service of the Crown. It is pleasant to know that they have been converted to that argument.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I thought that I had made it clear that we accepted that only because we realised that the Government's majority would ensure that there was such a Clause as this in the Bill. We did not accept the principle. We regarded our proposal as the lesser of two evils.

Mr. Robinson: I accept that. I was trying to be fair and I was about to say that in any event the Amendment acknowledges that principle for a very limited purpose.
What is the purpose which the Opposition have in mind? Their Amendment would enable my right hon. Friend or his Department to apply to the court, not for permission to use on agreed terms, but completely to revoke the patent, if he could show that the patentees had failed to be reasonable in their approach as to the agreed price. On first reading, and, indeed, later, I have been tempted to support the Amendment, had it been moved, because it would give the Government Department even greater advantages. It would certainly penalise the pharmaceutical industry far more than


does my right hon. Friend's suggestion, for if the Government proved their case the patent would be revoked entirely, and therefore no subsequent restrictions whatever could be invoked on the extent to which the power could be used, or the manner, or the price paid. There would be no machinery for a settlement of the price or compensation.
Furthermore, if a patent is revoked it leaves the way open to all other comers to use the patented product. Is that what the Opposition want? Action would be initiated solely by the Government Department, by the executive, not by the Parliamentary control suggested by my right hon. Friend. It is for the Opposition to choose which of the two courses they prefer. Despite the attractions to which I have referred, my preference is for my right hon. Friend's new Clause, and I am sure that that would be the preference of the pharmaceutical industry.

11.0 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I wish to raise one narrow point with the Minister which has not been emphasised in the discussion and which is concerned solely with the introduction of the word "vend" into the Minister's Clause. As I understand it, this is a matter which does, or could, have the effect of making the pharmaceutical industry the only private sector industry which in time of peace has to suffer its inventions being laid open to the power actually to sell patented goods to wholesalers, retailers and consumers, being given to the Government, and by the Government to third parties.
I perhaps should declare an interest, though not a pecuniary one, in that I am Vice-President of the Institute of Patentees and Inventors to whom this particular point has been put. I am not saying that the Institute entirely shares the anxiety of those who put the point to it, but what I am saying is that what this Clause is doing is bringing in the word "vend" as a right in addition to the power to make, use and exercise. Hitherto vending has only been brought in in cases of extreme emergency as set out in Section 49 of the Patents Act, 1949.
This is a matter which I think ought to be justified. Maybe there is a perfectly adequate justification for it, but I

think we ought at least to know why it is now thought necessary to do in time of peace what hitherto has only been claimed by the Crown in time of emergency.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: I have at the outset to declare an interest in that I have been a director of a well-known pharmaceutical company for some ten years. My concern about this Clause, however, is not related to any narrow interest of the industry, still less to any interests of my own.
In my view this Clause is thoroughly objectionable on a number of grounds, not least those touching the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole.
I think the Clause is bad in principle, and that if it becomes part of the law it will be thoroughly damaging when it does. I was quite unconvinced by the Minister's argument, which I think smacked very strongly of special pleading.
I would go further and say that the Clause is disreputable. I hope I have the Minister's attention. I say it is disreputable, which I know is a strong word, because although I do not know whether the Minister connived at the putting down of a Clause very like this a few days before Report stage, he at any rate accepted it and in doing so broke a pledge he gave to the industry.
If the Minister wants to deny this, I hope he will get up and say so. But he gave a pledge that he would not legislate in this field without full consultation, yet there was no consultation at all.
I see the Minister is shaking his head. If he denies this I hope he will get up and say so, because this is an important point. He does not move.
There was no consultation at all with the industry. The outright rejection of the Clause by the other place by 93 votes to 63 gave the Minister his chance to re-establish his previously good reputation with the industry by not persisting with this Clause, and I was very sorry indeed that he did not take that chance.
I intend to refer briefly to only four of the many objections which I see to the Clause. Firstly, I think it is both unnecessary and unwise to anticipate the findings of the Banks Committee.
Secondly, I think it is contrary to the principles of our patent system in two important respects which I will describe. Thirdly, I think it is bad because it does not contain certain vital safeguards which it should contain. Lastly, I want to refer to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke) about the inclusion of the word "vend".
As the House knows, the Banks Committee was set up in 1967 by this Government. Its terms of reference will be well-known to some hon. Members, but they were very wide indeed—so wide that the whole question of patent law in this country is now in the melting pot. This Government put it in the melting pot.
I have no reason to think that the Committee will recommend an extension of Crown use under Section 46 of the Patents Act, 1949. Indeed, a great deal of expert advice tends towards the limitation of Crown use under that Section. I regret that the Attorney-General is not here because he would be bound to agree with that view.
I will prove the point with some quotations. In the Pfizer case the House of Lords upheld the Minister of Health's action by a majority of three to two on strictly legal grounds, but a majority of the Law Lords expressed fears about any extension of Section 46 for two reasons. They questioned its extension beyond the needs of national defence—to which Section 46 was originally meant to apply, but no longer does—and they questioned its extension to cover services performed by Government Departments involving the use of patented articles by persons outside those Departments. Lord Wilberforce said during that hearing that to him this seemed
… to go far beyond a logical extension of the Crown's rights …".
These are important views, given by a distinguished lawyer, and it seems that no account has been taken of them by the Government in tabling the Amendment.
In evidence to the Banks Committee, the Institute of Chartered Patent Agents described the powers of the Minister of Health to invoke Section 46
… as seeming to be contrary to the principles of the British patent system.

Yet that is exactly what the Minister is seeking to do by the Amendment. I wonder what advice the Government's Law Officers have given the Minister about that. I do not suppose that we shall be told. Similar views have been expressed by the Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation. What account has been taken of those views? As far as I can see, none.
It is, therefore, complete humbug for the Minister to describe the Amendment, which flies in the face of such a wealth of expert opinion, as not fundamental to patent law. Never have I heard such nonsense. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not fundamental to patent law. I am a layman, not a lawyer, but I suggest that the lawyers agree that what is being sought to be done by the Amendment is fundamental to British patent law. The Minister had no business to say that what the Amendment seeks to do is not fundamental in this regard.
This raises the question of the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade to the Amendment. What view has he expressed? Why is he not here? Why is not even a junior Minister here to represent that Department when the whole question of patents is being opened up by the Amendment? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can be sent for so that he may express his view before we part with the Amendment. Is he content for this important change to be made without the recommendations of his expert Committee, the Banks Committee, being available? Indeed, the Committee has not even reported, and this proposal will almost certainly be in direct opposition to the Committee's views. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must be anxious about this matter.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Has my hon. and gallant Friend noted that in peacetime the only precedent for introducing the word "vend" is in Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1949, which refers only to atomic energy? The word has otherwise been introduced only in times of emergency.

Sir T. Beamish: That is a relevant observation. I believe that "vend" also appears in Section 49, which deals with emergency powers, but I may be wrong.
The Amendment is contrary to two important principles underlying our patents system. First, as the Institute of Chartered Patent Agents pointed out to the same Committee:
… the basis of the patent system is the provision of an incentive to invention and progress, by the offer of a limited monopoly, and it is believed that experience has justified the system.
The pharmaceutical industry is, as the House well knows, above all an innovating industry. Therefore, to put patent rights at risk in the arbitrary way proposed by the Clause is to remove an incentive to invention and progress.
It is also, I believe, bound to discourage research and slow down the flow of important new drugs needed for medical advance, and is likely to cause a decline in the industry's excellent export record. These axe very serious risks to take so carelessly. The President of the Board of Trade has an interest to declare on this point, and so has the Chancellor of the Exchequer, particularly with the nation's economy in such a sorry state. The economic consequences of this Clause could be very serious.
The second important principle of our patents system which the Clause offends is that Britain tries to conform to good international practice and to improve international standards. This is clearly set out in the terms of reference of the Banks Committee, which mention
… the increasing need for international collaboration.
From time to time, as a director of a pharmaceutical company, I have written to the President of the Board of Trade, under successive Governments, about the infringement of patents by foreign and Commonwealth countries. On each occasion the Minister concerned has deplored the infringement, and agreed with my view that if the habit were to spread it would be severely damaging to our economy.
Only last October, the then Minister of State, Board of Trade, wrote in a letter to me:
It is really a question of trying to persuade the Governments concerned that the erosion of patent rights will result in lack of confidence in business firms and resultant harm to the country. … Certainly we shall do all we can to persuade these people to see reason.

What about persuading these present people to see reason, too? What about our own Government. If foreign Governments are doing these things, and it is wrong, why does not the President of the Board of Trade get to work on his own colleagues? Again, why is he not here tonight when we are discussing this important Clause which must be contrary to the advice he has given to the Government? Acceptance of the Amendment would be a step in the opposite direction, and set the worst possible example to countries whose standards of practice in upholding patent rights are lower than our own.
My third point is the lack of safeguards embodied in the Clause. Under Section 46 of the Act there is no appeal. The Government are not required to show why they need to exercise this arbitrary power without the judicial scrutiny which is inherent in Section 32(3). The Minister has still not explained why, if he feels that his powers are inadequate, he has not sought to widen the definition of "services of the Crown" in Section 32, as my hon. Friends suggest in their admirable Amendment.
Section 32(3) allows the revoking of a patent
… if the court is satisfied that the patentee has without reasonable cause failed to comply with a request of the department to make, use or exercise the patented invention for the services of the Crown upon reasonable terms.
On what other grounds could the Minister seek to revoke a pharmaceutical patent? In time of emergency the Government have absolute powers under Section 49. All the assurances, if that is the word, which the Minister gave earlier—not that I doubt his word, of course—are worthless. He said something about giving an assurance about how he thinks Ministers who follow him at the Ministry of Health are likely to act. That is worth just nothing. It is what the law says that matters, not such assurances. I do not doubt the Minister's integrity in the matter at all, of course, or his assurance that while he is at the Ministry he will act reasonably. I fully accept that. But he cannot possibly pledge his successors. All they have to do is to act within the law, and there is no reason at all why they should act reasonably.
Another small point which should be noted is that nothing is written into the Clause to make it binding upon the Minister to apply the standards of "safety, quality or efficacy" to which manufacturers applying for licences under the Medicines Bill must conform. We are told that the Government always comply with their own laws. The truth of the matter is that in 1961, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) invoked Section 46 of the Patents Act, it was discovered subsequently that quite a number of drugs which were imported were not only sub-standard but likely to have harmful side-effects. This could well happen again, because the Minister is not providing the safeguard that drugs made by unlicensed manufacturers must conform with regard to "safety, quality or efficacy" in the same way as drugs provided by the patentee.
11.15 p.m.
Finally, in line 5 of the Clause the Minister seeks to extend his powers under Section 46 by including the right to vend. I realise that the definition of "vend" has been debated at great length by the highest legal experts in the land, and I shall not state my own views. It was described, probably very accurately, by Mr. T. A. Blanco White in his book "Patent for Inventions". 3rd Edition. 1962, in this way:
the expression 'vend' includes not only sale, but commercial dealing generally.
Therefore, using this word means that the Minister is going far wider than anyone has ever gone before. We have had no explanation of this. There has been dead silence. We all want to know why "vend" suddenly appears in the Clause. I am sure that we shall get an explanation. The Minister is smiling, but it is an important point, as I am sure that he will agree. This is a new word to introduce in normal peacetime conditions. I am sure that we shall get an explanation of why that word appears.

Mr. K. Robinson: I was merely indicating that in due course I shall be happy to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am asking to be given a chance. That is all.

Sir T. Beamish: The Minister will have a chance. He need not worry. He will

get plenty of chance. I look forward to hearing what he has to say. I hope that he will also answer the other points which have been raised and, in particular, tell me what the President of the Board of Trade thinks about this Clause. This is what I most particularly want to know.
These, then, very briefly indeed, are my main objections to the Clause. It pre-judges the findings of an expert committee which is already studying patent law as a whole in the context of improving international collaboration. It is contrary to important accepted principles of our patents system. It gives the Minister absolute powers which he can exercise without explanation and without allowing any right of appeal. The system of praying against an order laid under the Clause means nothing whatsoever. It is not Parliament that decides these things. It is the Government of the day. We all know perfectly well that that is true. An order cannot be amended. It can only be defeated. It is the Minister of Health in the Government of the day that has the say-so here. This is not a safeguard.
I conclude by saying that I hope that the Minister, having listened to the argument advanced against the Clause, will think again even at this very late hour. I think that this is a thoroughly bad Clause. I hope that the Minister will withdraw it.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I must as usual in these debates declare an interest as a director of a group of pharmaceutical companies. The purpose of the Clause, as I understand it, is to enable the Government to obtain the medicines they want at their own price. The Government are saying in effect, "If you will not sell to me at my price, I will break your patent and buy from people who can copy your invention without incurring the research and development costs which you have had to meet". That is legalised robbery of a patent right by a Government Department. It is just the sort of erosion of private rights against which Parliament should protect the people. It is also a bonus for the copyists at the expense of the innovators. Its objective is simply a short-term and, in my view, a very shortsighted economy for the Minister of Health.
I say that it is short-sighted because the patent system which it erodes is essential to research. In Italy there is no patent protection; therefore, there is little research and no significant new drugs. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is a high-risk industry. If patent rights are threatened in this way, research is automatically discouraged and the end result may well be fewer inventions, lower exports, and higher imports.
Let alone extending Section 46 in the way the Clause would provide, I doubt very much whether any part of the Health Service should be regarded as a service of the Crown for the overriding of patent rights. When it was used originally and, I thought, wrongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), I did not agree with what he did. In passing, I must say that it is amusing and ironic to hear, of all people, the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) praying in aid something done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. One does not often hear praise of his views from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Pavitt: The hon. Gentleman will agree that one could not find a better or firmer example of a rigid and conservative attitude as Economic Secretary to the Treasury than that of his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman must be very pushed for arguments if he has to quote with such approval a right hon. Member whose views on this and many other subjects he does not accept.
Although hon. Members opposite may say that what my right hon. Friend did was right, I consider that it was wrong. Moreover, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) pointed out, my right hon. Friend received the narrowest of judgments in the House of Lords when the case went there—three votes to two—and even then the majority of the law Lords commented adversely on the inroads which the then, and lesser, Crown user rights were making into private patent rights.
This new extension of Crown rights is even more damaging to the industry and seriously reduces the protection which the patent gives to the inventor. It is also

quite out of line with Europe and the Common Market. No European country has a provision like Section 46. In France, for instance, the State can take a patented invention only for the purposes of national defence. As has been said, that was the original intention of the legislation in this country, too. It was to be used for defence purposes in a time of national emergency, and quite right in that context. But that was all. To use it as my right hon. Friend did, and as the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to do, as a piece of price reducing mechanism—for that is what it amounts to—is an arbitrary action never intended or even dreamed of when Parliament passed the Patents Act.
This is a typical example of the way in which legislation passed for one purpose can be misused—I go so far as to say abused—by a subsequent Government for another and quite different purpose. Moreover, the pharmaceutical industry is the only industry in the private sector, so far as I know, to be singled out for discriminatory treatment in this uniquely unfavourable way. It is the only industry in which patented inventions can not only be taken over but can actually be sold by the State at a time when there is no national emergency.
In the other place, the noble Baroness, Baroness Phillips, implied that the C.B.I. is now quite relaxed about the Clause. That is not so. The C.B.I, is marginally less opposed to the Clause in this new form than it was to the Clause in its old form, but it is still opposed to it in any form at all. It was disingenuous of the noble Baroness to imply otherwise.
If the purpose of the Clause is dubious, the tactics in introducing it were deplorable. A Bill dealing with public health is not the right vehicle for a change in the patent law. Perhaps that is why the Clause was not mentioned in the original Bill, a Measure dealing with different matters and having no connection with patents whatever. It was not even discussed or included in Committee. Then suddenly on Report, after a four-month interval, the Clause was slipped on to the Order Paper on a Friday in a thoroughly hole-in-the-corner way.

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to be accurate. I do not make a point of this.


but that has been said elsewhere, and the fact is that it was not put in late on a Friday but early on a Thursday.

Mr. Fisher: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that makes his case stronger or less disreputable I am ready to let him have the extra day. Most people did not see it until the Monday. Hon. Members are very often in their constituencies on Fridays—I was myself—and I saw that Clause for the first time on the Monday. I have been here for some time, but I may be an innocent in these matters. I was surprised in the circumstances of the way in which it was introduced that the right hon. Gentleman so readily accepted it. I thought that it was a shabby way to treat the House.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes pointed out, it was also a thoroughly discourteous way to treat the industry, because the right hon. Gentleman had promised to consult the industry and in fact there was no consultation. It had barely even been mentioned in the industry's talks with the Ministry. Between the Friday—or the Thursday—and the Monday there could have been very little time for reflection in the Department, unless it was all hatched up before. If it was a genuine back-bench Amendment there can have been only a few days for study by the Ministry and the experts. There was certainly inadequate time before the debate for my hon. Friends and myself to study the matter.
What was the hurry? The Banks Committee is reviewing the patent law and should report before long. Why should the Committee's views be prejudged in this rushed way? The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Clause is a weapon of last resort which will seldom be used. What, then, is the urgency? In any event, such a Ministerial assurance does not have the force of law.
The Treasury might well bring pressure on future Ministers of Health, and even on the present Minister, to cut National Health Service costs. It is very likely that it will. Look at what happened over the prescription charges, in spite of the assurances the right hon. Gentleman gave his hon. Friends—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just a shade outside the Amendment.

Mr. Fisher: I must confess that I could not resist it, Mr. Speaker; but I must accept your Ruling. It had nothing to do with the subject.
In those circumstances—and this is perhaps the relevance—the Clause would be a gift to the Treasury which few Ministers could withstand. If there is a deadlock between a pharmaceutical firm and the Government over the price of a product why should not there be an independent inquiry or arbitration to resolve it? No reasons have been given. The industry accepts the principle of public accountability for its prices. It would agree to accept the verdict of a third party, but the Government will not agree. They want to be judge and jury in their own cause.
It is no answer to say, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that arbitration would involve delay. I understand that the industry would agree to price reductions being made retrospective to the date of the start of the negotiations. That point has therefore not been answered, and I hope that we shall have a better answer when the Minister replies.
The industry would agree to the use of Section 32 of the Patents Act, as suggested in our Amendment, which carries complete revocation of the patent if the court decides that the patent holder has been unreasonable. I do not think that one can say fairer than that.
The right hon. Gentleman's Clause does nothing but legalise expropriation. Why will not the Government go to the courts? There can be only one answer. It is that they know that they might lose in the courts. The right hon. Gentleman said that he will seldom, if ever, use the Clause, which is not a very good reason for rushing it into the Bill. He does not seem to understand that the Clause will demage the industry and the nation, whether it is used or not, because research costs millions of pounds and takes years, and if there is doubt about the reliability of patent protection, many companies will be worried and some will either carry out less research or will do so in another country and export the results of it to Britain instead of exporting the results of it from Britain, that would not be helpful to our balance of payments.
11.30 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman has dealt very fairly with the industry over the Sainsbury Report and the Medicines Bill. I wish to pay him that public tribute although it may embarrass him. I have always said—and he knows I mean it—that he is a very good Minister of Health. It is therefore all the sadder that, on this issue, he has disappointed so many of his admirers in order to placate a few of his hon. Friends. He cannot be proud of this Clause. In origin it is not even his own. I wish that he would drop it and bury it and so restore his good name for fairminded objectivity, which is a valuable reputation for any Minister to enjoy.

Mr. K. Robinson: By leave of the House, I would like to make a brief reply. The debate has been not dissimilar from the debate which took place on the matter in another place. We have had some hyperbole, some lather of passion and some monotonous declarations of personal financial interests from hon. Members opposite. We have heard a great deal about alleged injustices which might arise from invocation of these powers. I will ones again remind the House of what would happen in that event. Royalties would be determined in a court of law on the basis of fairness and equity and would be paid by the Government to the patent holder in respect of sales which the Government made from unlicensed sources. Is there any gross unfairness and inequity in a procedure of that kind? Nor have we heard one word from hon. Members opposite about the desirability of protecting the Government and the taxpayer against possible—I put it no higher—abuse of monopoly of patent rights.
The hon. and gallant Member for Lewis (Sir T. Beamish), whose speech was rather more intemperate than most, and the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) accused me of taking decisions without consultation and of a breach of faith with the industry. This I reject utterly. Hon. Members know that we attach great importance to consultation with the industry and there have been a number of meetings. Section 46 has been amongst the subjects discussed, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, at these meetings and representatives of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry have made clear their general views on this Sainsbury recommendation.

They subsequently supplied my Department with their evidence to the Sainsbury Committee, which set out those views in detail, and, shortly before the Report stage of the Bill in this House, sent a prepared paper summarising their current views.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Mr. Dudley Smith rose—

Mr. Robinson: No. I will not give way. I want to finish this part of my speech about consultation.

Mr. Smith: It is an important point and the right hon. Gentleman should give way.

Mr. Robinson: This paper added nothing to what we knew about the Association's views and my decision to accept the Amendment on Report moved by my Hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) was taken in full knowledge and after careful consideration of the views of the Association.
I would certainly not accept that there has been any breach of any undertaking to the Association.

Mr. Fisher: Mr. Fisher rose—

Mr. Robinson: I will not give way. I want to deal with another matter. I have sat here, listening to a lot of hyperbolic speeches, and I propose to answer one or two points. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) claimed, unless I misunderstood him, that some of the imports made under the previous Section 46 arrangements had been defective in quality, and even dangerous. I know of no such case, and I have made inquiries. I hope that if he can substantiate this, he will let me have full particulars, so that it may be investigated.

Sir T. Beamish: I will with pleasure.

Mr. Robinson: I was asked about the use of the term "vend". The inclusion of the term is to make it clear that sales of drugs from the manufacturer or importer to the distributor, and from one of these to the chemist, doctor or dentist, who may all be involved in the supply of drugs for the pharmaceutical services, are covered by the Clause. The hospital service is already covered. The right of the person authorised to vend to the Minister was held by the courts in the


Pfizer case to be implied. Any authorisations that may be issued would specify the limitation as to the use of the powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) asked whether it would be necessary to lay a separate regulation for each drug in respect of which it is proposed to make an order. It is not necessary. The regulations could name one or more drugs, and having done so, the provisions of Section 46 could be invoked by one or more authorisations. The House has listened to a very exaggerated attack on this limited extension of patent protection, which the Crown already enjoys in the hospital service. All we seek to do is to extend that to the general medical and pharmaceutical services, and I hope that the House will now pass the new Clause.

Mr. Paul Dean: We have had from the Minister, unusually for him, two totally inadequate speeches on this new Clause. He has not only chosen an extremely bad thing to do, but he has also chosen the worst and unfairest way of achieving his objectives. In view of what has been said in some of the speeches by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I want to make clear that our Amendment with regard to Section 32(3) was by no means the choice which we would make in other circumstances. It was simply that if the Minister is determined to do something, in our view it would be fair to use the procedure of that Section rather than what he is proposing.
It has been said repeatedly from this side of the House that the Minister is creating a situation in which he will be judge and jury on a matter with regard to the reasonableness of prices. It is no good his saying that royalties will be decided by the courts. He is judge and jury in the beginning, and that, in our view, is highly undesirable, and contrary to natural justice. He also said that there has been no reference to the need to protect the taxpayer. Surely he realises that the best way to do this, in this instance, is to ensure that there are fair conditions in which the pharmaceutical industry can operate?
There is no doubt that this Clause will create uncertainty. We hope that it will not, but it could well discourage

research and, therefore, have a bad effect on the very good export record of this industry. If that were to happen the Minister would not be caring for the interests of the taxpayer. The Minister said that normal competitive conditions do not exist. But surely he recognises the tremendous importance of the export trade of our pharmaceutical industry. Surely he recognises, too, that what he is proposing to do will put this country out of line with every country in Europe. There is no country in Europe—indeed, there are few countries in the world—which has a provision similar to Section 46. There is always the possibility, as a consequence, of retaliation against British patented products abroad. All these things are of significance to the taxpayer.
The Banks Committee is considering the whole of this complex subject at present. The Minister says that this is a Clause for last resort. Why the hurry? Why cannot the Minister wait until the Banks Committee has reported on this matter? It would be very interesting to know the discussions which have been going on behind the scenes between the Minister and his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I have a shrewd suspicion that the absence of the President of the Board of Trade suggests that he is not very happy about the Clause that the Minister of Health is putting forward.
There is also the lack of consultation with the industry, which the Minister has not been able to deny tonight. Surely this is the worst possible atmosphere in which talks for the revision of the voluntary price regulation agreement can take place. The Minister is placing the pharmaceutical industry in a position in which no private industry in this country is at the moment: not only to take over, but also for the State to be able to sell. I will not repeat the points which have been made by my hon. Friends about the word "vend".
The Minister has put forward an exceedingly weak case. In our view the reason is clear. It is a disreputable example of political horse trading and appeasement of certain of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters. I hope that the Minister will feel suitably ashamed at having to stoop to this level, which is so unusual for him. In view of this, when


the debate is concluded, we shall condemn it in the Lobbies.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I apologise for troubling the House at this late hour, but I will be brief, as hon. Members waiting for the next business had a late night last night. Clearly the blame lies fairly and squarely on the Government for bringing forward such important business at such a late hour. Obviously, from the speeches that we have heard, with no element of filibustering, there are some important points to be made in a debate of this kind, and it is right that Parliament should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion.
I say, further, that this debate would never have taken place if the Minister had not, at the eleventh hour, brought forward an alteration which incensed another place, with the result that this was thrown out and the Minister now needs to bring it forward again. I hope this will teach not perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, but the Government that if they do underhanded things they are liable to rebound. They gain nothing in the long term. In fact it holds up business.
I hope that the Leader of the House, who has now turned up to eventually perhaps move the closure, will realise that in circumstances like this—obviously the right hon. Gentleman is not paying attention, as usual—it is better to play straight with the Opposition, whatever the particular motives, than to introduce a Clause at the eleventh hour.
11.45 p.m.
I declare an interest, because I am a director of the pharmaceutical division of a leading British company. I make no apology for that—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Dudley Smith.

Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not in order to interject when we have listened to one Member after another telling us how this matter affects his pocket?

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not in order to continue to interject.

Mr. Smith: It sometimes helps if people with expert knowledge of an in-

dustry are able to give an opinion. Quite irrespective of my connection with the industry, I was interested in it long before I was connected with it professionally, and on an issue of this sort, an issue of fundamental British justice, it is right that people should be allowed to speak, whether they have an interest or not.
It has been said that the powers contained in the Clause will be used only as a last resort. If that is the case, why have they been rushed into the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman is a good Minister in many other respects. Only the other day he made a statesmanlike statement about the Sainsbury Report. Why has he now brought in this alteration to the Bill? He has introduced it as a quid pro quo for his rebellious Left-wing back benchers who are incensed with his views on other aspects of the Sainsbury Report.
All through the debate the point has been made that there should be fair protection for patents. If we believe that the law of patents should appertain, surely in this case adequate protection should be given to the pharmaceutical industry? We have heard—and this is true—that this is an innovating industry, that it lives by research. It has brought incalculable benefits to mankind, and it should be protected.
The idea behind the Clause is obviously, in extreme circumstances, to try to get drug prices down. Pressure for this type of provision comes largely from people who adopt an emotional approach to the subject. They think that it is wrong and immoral to make a profit out of the sick. That is an emotive phrase, and most people would support it, but I say thank goodness that the pharmaceutical industry makes profits out of the sick, because by so doing it enables itself to go on with further research and to bring in new drugs to save lives and save people from serious illness.
I think that two things will happen if the Clause is implemented. Either the reputable pharmaceutical companies will find that it is not worth while going on with basic research and will begin adapting other company's products under the rules which will allow them to do so with the patents being waived, and therefore they will be purely manufacturers and not innovators, or the Minister will


resort to pirate drug companies which operate not only in this country but on the continent.
I wonder whether the Minister has considered that? Does he understand that many of these pirate drug companies are dubiously operated, and only too prepared to cash in on somebody else's invention? I do not think it is going too far to say that if the Minister—or a less liberal successor than the right hon. Gentleman—brings in this provision he will provide a licence to steal somebody else's invention, and will allow somebody else to benefit very considerably from the research and financial efforts of the reputable companies.
The pirate concerns which I have in mind are completely unscrupulous. They try to cash in on the skill and efforts of others. They devote a great deal of time to bringing forward drugs many of which, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) said, are substandard.
Instead of devoting his time to bringing in compulsory licensing the Minister should devote it to a far greater extent to running these pirate drug companies out of business. He is entering very

shady territory if he or any of his successors starts dealing with pirate drug companies in this country, who import much material from abroad, a lot of which is sub-standard. Evidence can be provided to prove this.

In effect the Minister's mollifying noises, to the effect that this is really a last resort, in case of difficulty or inability to reach agreement with companies is no assurance. We have heard such assurances on many occasions from this Government. In many cases the nation will live to regret the acceptance of those assurances, because they mean nothing. This provision will be very harmful to the pharmaceutical industry. It is the sort of move that is brought forward by a Socialist Government who do not believe in private enterprise, in order to assuage its left wing critics of the Sainsbury Report.

The Minister is far too sensible a man not to realise that this provision will do no good. He knows that it is a harmful provision, and I hope that at a later stage he will recant and withdraw it.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 84.

Division No. 278.]
AYES
[11.52 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stan


Archer, Peter
Hannan, William
Oakes, Gordon


Armstrong, Ernest
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Albert E.


Cant, R. B.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pavitt, Laurence


Coe, Denis
Hoy, James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Conlan, Bernard
Huckfield, Leslie
Pentland, Norman


Dalyell, Tam
Hynd, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Fdge Hill)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dempsey, James
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dobson, Ray
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Dunn, James A.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lawson, George
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dun woody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Slater, Joseph


Ellis, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Snow, Julian


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Varley, Eric G.


Ensor, David
McCann, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McGuire, Michael
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fernyhough, E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Whitaker, Ben


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Whitlock, William


Forrester, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fowler, Gerry
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, Archie
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mendelson, J. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gregory, Arnold
Millan, Bruce



Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Neal, Harold
Mr. Alan Fitch and




Mr. J. D. Concannon.




NOES


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bell, Ronald
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Black, Sir Cyril
Braine, Bernard


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Brinton, Sir Tatton




Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Campbell, B. (Oldham, West)
Hornby, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Sharples, Richard


Crouch, David
Kirk, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Crowder, F. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Emery, Peter
Lane, David
Speed, Keith


Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stainton, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Fisher, Nigel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miscampbell, Norman
Tilney, John


Fortescue, Tim
Monro, Hector
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Foster, Sir John
More, Jasper
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Ward, Dame Irene


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wilson, Geoffrey (Tturo)


Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peel, John
Younger, Hn. George


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian



Harvie Anderson, Miss
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis
Mr. R.W. Elliott and




Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Consequential Amendment made: In page 55, line 31, after 'Act', insert 'except section (Extension of power of user by Crown of patented invention to user for certain health services) thereof'. —[Mr. K. Robinson.]

5
"A.—(1) Regulations made under section 38(3) of the 1946 Act (which authorises regulations providing for the making and recovery of charges in respect of pharmaceutical services) and regulations made under section 1(1) of the National Health 5 Service Act 1952 (which authorises regulations providing for the making and recovery of charges in respect of the supply, as part of hospital and specialist services under Part II of the 1946 Act, of drugs, medicines and appliances) may each provide for the grant, on payment of such sums as may be so prescribed,


10
of certificates conferring on the persons to whom the certificates are granted exemption from charges otherwise exigible under the regulations in respect of drugs, medicines and appliances supplied during such period as may be so prescribed; and different sums may be so prescribed in relation to different periods.


15
(2) This section shall have effect in Scotland as if, for the references therein to section 38(3) and Part II of the 1946 Act, there were substituted references respectively to section 40(3) and Part II of the 1947 Act."

Read a Second time.

Amendment made: In line 9, leave out 'so' and insert 'thereby'—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended by the Amendment.
The object of this Clause is to give Ministers power to make Regulations providing for the issue to persons who pay a prescribed sum of certificates entitling the holder to exemption from the payment of prescription charges.
The need arises from the decision to reintroduce charges and to make arrange-

New Clause "A"

CERTIFICATES FOR EXEMPTION FROM PRESCRIPTION CHARGES

Lords Amendment No. 5, in page 23, line 41, at end insert new Clause "A":

ments for wide categories of patients to be exempted. Of those categories, the most difficult to exempt is the chronic sick, where finding a satisfactory definition presents both practical and theoretical problems. On the one hand, we have wished to do everything possible to help a class of patient who, because of the number of prescriptions they are liable to need, are clearly at risk of suffering hardship if they have to pay prescription charges. On the other hand, we have necessarily had regard to the understandable reluctance of doctors to accept responsibility for exercising discretion in the identification of those who are to be regarded as chronic sick.

The help of doctors is, of course, essential in defining the chronic sick for the purpose of exemption. As a result of lengthy discussions with doctors' representatives it was decided that the best course would be to try, with their help, to define objectively categories which are certain to need continuous medication for long periods and which admit of no discretion as to the identification of individuals. The result was the list of diseases and conditions specified in the Regulations. This list was, I repeat, the maximum on which it was possible to secure agreement.

There is, however, one class of patient which does not benefit; people between 15 and 64 not receiving Ministry of Social Security pensions or allowances who, through not suffering from any of the conditions listed, nevertheless require, over a period, an exceptional number of prescriptions. Some examples are patients who suffer from prolonged bronchitis in the winter and arthritic and psychiatric patients whose condition calls for regular medication.

These diseases cannot be included in the list of exemptions because they embrace a very wide range of conditions, varying according to the severity and stage of development in each case, so that discrimination between individuals would require invidious discretionary judgments. Where, however, such patients need regular medication, the Government wish to help them if they can. It is proposed, therefore, that arrangements should be made enabling any patient to obtain an exemption certificate which would be valid for a fixed period on payment of a suitable fee. Such people will thus be relieved of the excess burden which their special need for medication would otherwise impose. At the same time, we can avoid the problems of further defining chronic sickness.

The existing powers under which charges can be levied for prescriptions are not wide enough to allow exemption certificates to be made available on payment, and that is why it has been necessary for the Government to introduce the new Clause. I cannot at present forecast the contents of the Regulations. We have still to work out finally the mechanics of the scheme, but I have already indicated my general ideas to the House, and

perhaps the main arrangement might be an exemption for six months in return for a single payment of 30s.

In connection with the timetable, I cannot add to what I said in the debate on 30th May; that I hope that we shall be able to have the scheme working by the winter. We will, of course, need to arrange for publicity to be given to the scheme when it is about to start. Given that there is no prospect of securing agreement to a widening of the definition of the chronic sick, I am satisfied that a single-payment exemption is a device which will go a long way towards mitigating any residual hardship which will not be caught up by the very wide exemption arrangements already in operation.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: What opportunity will the House have to take another look at the matter when my right hon. Friend has filled in the details?

Mr. Robinson: Regulations will have to be laid, and they will be open to debate.

Dr. John Dunwoody: I will not delay the House unnecessarily at this late hour, but this is an extremely important new Clause about which several matters should be raised.
This is a well-intentioned proposal which will go some way towards alleviating the harsher effects of the introduction of prescription charges.
As my right hon. Friend said, it will help the chronic sick in many categories, such as those with recurring winter illnesses, bronchitis, heart trouble, arthritis, as well as psychiatric patients. Inevitably anomalies will arise and injustices will occur. I fear that the sense of grievance which is already felt will spread among patients as a result of the half-crown prescription charge. Most of us are already receiving letters from patients expressing a sense of grievance about the charge.
Many difficulties will present themselves to doctors and patients in carrying out the "season ticket" procedure. This procedure will still place the doctor in a nearly impossible position when he feels, for medical reasons, that it is not possible for him to let a patient know that he is chronically ill; for


example, when it is not possible to tell a patient who is suffering from a malignant disease that he has an illness which will last for many months. One may try to suggest that it is a temporary illness. In these circumstances patients will not be able to obtain exemption for the payment of a fee.
The same is true of many other conditions, including psychiatric patients. It is probably equally true of the cases of multiple sclerosis that will occur all too tragically among young people who are still at work. These are the inevitable consequences of the introduction of prescription charges, and whatever method of exemption we have we will still find ourselves facing these difficulties.
My right hon. Friend says that probably in most cases there will be a lump sum payment of 30s. for six months' exemption, and I presume there will be a comparable figure for longer or shorter periods. I find it difficult to accept the reasons given for the necessity of having such a payment. It seems yet again to negate the basic principles behind the National Health Services, and that once again we are taxing the sick. We are, perhaps, not taxing them as much as we would if there were a charge of 2s. 6d. for every prescription, but we are still taxing the sick—the chronic sick. It will have to be paid, for example, by people who are disabled but who yet manage to get from their homes to work, and people who are suffering from pneumoconiosis and have had to give up higher paid for lower paid employment.
One has to ask: why must anything be paid? When these charges were initially suggested, we were told that as soon as possible a system of exemptions would be arranged for particular categories, and that those categories would include the chronic sick. I cannot understand why a charge must be made. Is it to be a deterrent to the patient? Does it mean that we cannot trust the doctors?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss on this particular Lords Amendment the question of prescription charges and exemptions in general.

Dr. Dunwoody: I am sorry if I have strayed beyond the allowable limits, Mr. Speaker. My point is that the 30s. charge seems to be unnecessary. It will be a deterrent, and as a means of raising

revenue it will raise only a paltry sum. Here we have another example of a dangerous wedge which, if driven, could give rise to other charges being made in other areas. While I accept the Clause, I ask my right hon. Friend to review its operation after a short period, because the time must come when we can abandon these changes once and for all and avoid taxing ill-health—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would not question the hon. Member's right to say what he wants to say, but he cannot say it on this Amendment.

Dr. Dunwoody: I hope that as soon as possible my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity to review the present means of providing exemptions for those who require them.

Mr. Mendelson: This is one of the important powers that the Minister is taking in implementing the policy of re-imposing prescription charges, so he had to argue that it is part and parcel of his general scheme, an important factor in making the scheme acceptable to him and to the Government, and an important factor in strengthening the Government's case for recommending the scheme to the House. I am opposed to any rushing of a debate such as this whatever may be the time. If this House of Commons does not take proper time for the discussion of the consequences of re-imposition of prescription charges it is not doing its work—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time has nothing to do with it: order has everything to do with it. We are now discussing a particular Clause.

Mr. Mendelson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and with great respect I am deliberately introducing my contribution as I have done because there have been tendencies by the Executive in introducing this subject at this late hour to produce a hurried debate. I wish to record my protest against introducing it at this late hour. A matter of this importance should come on for debate early in the afternoon, so that it may be properly reported in the early editions of the newspapers to those affected. It is the business managers in the House who make these decisions. We back benchers have no power over them. It is therefore deliberately and advisedly that I introduce my remarks in this way.
During the debate on the main question on the reimposition of prescription charges, the Government pointed out that the great difference between what they were doing and what had been suggested hitherto was the exemptions. Their case for what they are doing hinges upon the provisions for exemption. We are now told by the Minister that it has not been possible to reach agreement, as he desired, on categories of exemptions. This is a failure of the Government to implement their original pledge that this will be a reimposition of charges which provides such exemptions that we can be certain that nobody who ought to receive his prescriptions free will not so receive them. After what the Minister said tonight, we have no such assurance. Those who voted for the original reimposition of charges ought to think again. Therefore, this is a debate of fundamental importance.
12.15 a.m.
At the time that the main question was debated it was said that not so many people had yet written to hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in this, but we are not debating the main question. The hon. Gentleman must find some other day for debating the main question. We are debating a Clause which another place put into the Bill.

Mr. Mendelson: Whilst another place was putting this Clause into the Bill hon. Members were apprehensive as to what the nature of the Clause would be. It is not possible to separate the two. Now letters are beginninig to roll in—I have received some; other hon. members have received some—directly relevant to the Clause. Those who write to us are saying things such as—I quote from memory—"My husband has been ill for many years. He used to work in a dust-producing industry. I am told by my family doctor that my husband cannot be included in any of the exemption categories". I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is directly relevant to the Clause, because the people that my right hon. Friend is talking about as coming under the Clause are the kind of people who are now writing to hon. Members in the terms that I have just quoted.
It is noticeable that, although the benches opposite were nearly full a few

minutes ago when the pharmaceutical industry was being debated and money was involved, they are now nearly empty. It is the task of hon. Members on this side, who genuinely represent those affected by this provision, to speak up on this occasion.
I turn to the essential details of the Clause. If a number of categories which we were given to understand that the Minister was striving to have included are not to be included, it is clear that progressively more and more people who are ill, and who have been ill for many years, will be forced to make these payments. I come from an area which has a number of dust-producing industries. It is well understood in the House that the incidence of certain types of social legislation falls far more heavily upon certain parts of the country than it does upon other parts of the country.
Many of the debates which have been held in the House about the establishment of new, accepted industrial diseases within the category of industrial diseases have turned upon the incidence in different parts of the country of industries that produce a lot of dust. Areas which contain mining, foundry works and other heavy dust-producing industry are directly represented. I represent one of those areas.
The illness of pneumoconiosis has already been mentioned. I am certain that there will be many more letters like the one I have already cited, and I know for certain, too, that there will be a larger number of people in the industrial areas—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I am not without sympathy for the view which the hon. Gentleman would wish to express, but we are not discussing the burden of prescription charges on the community. We are discussing a Clause which, as the hon. Gentleman will find if he reads it, has to do with certificates of exemption.

Mr. Mendelson: I leave that point, Mr. Speaker. I have made my main point. I appreciate your difficulty as regards the general theme, and I have no wish to go out of order. I pass now from the question of the differing incidence in different parts of the country.
A sum as large as 30s. may well be less than that represented by a number


of prescriptions which a patient may need over six months. But what matters is the burden of such a sum of money for the people of whom I have spoken. Many in the category I have described have been ill for years. Either they have had a low income all their lives or they were at one time on a higher income, when they were doing a different job, and have had a low income for some time now. They come in what we usually call in debates the lower income groups. It is no light matter for them to have to pay out 30s., as it might be for others with higher incomes. This is the essential point of the debate which we had when the reimposition of prescription charges was proposed, and it is directly relevant to the present debate on the Clause. People with lower incomes will be harder hit by this provision than others.
If the Government are now saying that, regrettably, other categories for exemption could not be agreed and they are, therefore, offering this new Clause to the House as a solution to the problem, I predict that my right hon. Friend will find that it will not be regarded as an acceptable solution. He ought, therefore, to try to add to the categories for exemption. He must not think, because at this late hour there are comparatively few Members present, that he will not hear from many more as the scheme develops and as the incidence of its imposition comes fully home to many of our constituents. People are not yet aware of what it will mean to them, but they will become aware and will then make their voices heard.

Mr. Pavitt: I shall make my speech as succinct as I can, Mr. Speaker, but, as you and the House know, I feel passionately on the whole question of this provision, which is part of a totality of policy with which I am not in accord.
The scheme of the Clause and the system of exemptions by certificate are a complete nonsense. It is altogether cumbersome, and I hope that, as a result of this debate, the country will realise, perhaps for the first time, that there is no such thing as an exemption for the chronic sick. Only a few people—four categories in medical terms—can be exempted. People in the other 60 or 70 categories of chronic sick—people like the one whose letter was quoted by my

hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and people like those who have written to me, and many of whose letters I am sending on to my right hon. Friend—will feel that they have been cheated. They were under the impression that, as they were chronic sick, they would be exempt, but they will now find that they are not.
The Clause will give but little amelioration of their situation. I hope that it will now be made clear to the country that the chronic sick are not exempt, but there is only a season ticket, so to speak, which will afford them some reduction. In any event, the season ticket will be self-defeating. For one illness, a short illness of a fortnight's duration, one may need more than 12 items of medicine. But if people feel that they are likely to need more than that amount of medicines in the following six months, they can opt under the Clause to take out a season ticket.
But human nature being what it is, this is the hypochondriac's charter. People who fancy that they are likely to be ill can apply for 30s. worth of medicines, and have the right to have as many medicines as they like for that sum. Instead of bringing down the drugs bill, the Clause will have the ultimate result of causing the consumption of more medicines and wasting more of doctors' time. Having paid their 30s. for a complete six months, people will reckon that whether they want aspirin or anything else they are entitled to have it as they have already paid.
The reason for the Clause, as my right hon. Friend has said, is that he could not get the doctors to play. This meant that the whole burden of operating prescription charges rests on the pharmacists, and therefore they are to be given £450,000 more this year and £500,000 more next year to operate the scheme. This is nonsense, because the object is to help the country in its economic difficulties and not to pay another £500,000 to pharmacists, and therefore the Clause does not help.
When shall we have an opportunity to debate the Order? The Clause only gives my right hon. Friend the right to lay it. It is likely that the House will rise for the Summer Recess before 21 days left in this Session have elapsed and time will be short even if an Order is


laid tomorrow. The House will no doubt approve the Clause because it is ameliorative. Bad as it is, it is better than nothing. In the event of the Order not expiring before the House rises for the recess, do we get the introduction of the season ticket scheme during the recess? Shall we have to debate it at ten o'clock on the last day before the House rises? I am sure that hon. Members will wish to have a further debate.
What will the cost of the season ticket scheme be? At one time my right hon. Friend estimated it at £800,000. Has he confirmed that estimate?

Mr. K. Robinson: With the leave of the House I shall gladly answer my hon. Friend's two questions. I cannot tell him anything about cost because this depends on the administrative arrangements we make. The figure he quoted was for a much more elaborate scheme covering the whole of prescription charges. As to the timing of laying the

Order, I cannot go further than I went in opening. We still hope to get the system into operation by the winter, but if it were necessary to lay an Order before the end of the long recess the 40 days for a Prayer would not begin to operate until the House resumed, so there would be plenty of opportunity for the House to put down a Prayer against the Order. The timing of that debate is not a matter for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.